Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: facing facts

Expand Messages
  • Roy Langston
    ... Likewise if you collect more than 100%, so we are back to your anti-scientific nonsense of zero tolerance. ... Of course I am aware of them. I just want
    Message 1 of 40 , May 11, 2008
      Harry Pollard wrote:

      >The very first economic reform is that all that
      >belongs to labor should be retained by labor.
      >That is perhaps the ethical basis for full Rent
      >collection. Collect less than 100% and you "tax"
      >labor for the benefit of some.

      Likewise if you collect more than 100%, so we are back to
      your anti-scientific nonsense of zero tolerance.

      >OK, we'll leave Clairton and other real world
      >examples of Rent collection out of it -
      >particularly as you are apparently unaware of
      >such examples.

      Of course I am aware of them. I just want you to specify
      how you imagine they support your claims. Why get snotty
      just because I identify the fact that you cannot provide
      any evidence for your claims?

      Oh, right, I forgot: you need to divert attention from the
      fact that your claims are unsupportable by fact or logic.

      >You mix up valuation and collection.

      No, of course I don't. The subject is collection, not

      >Let's stay with valuation. You "conclusively" deny
      >that the full Rent can be collected because valuation
      >is not 100% accurate. So you say we should collect
      >99% to "err on the side of caution".

      >I'm not sure whether you really mean this.

      Apparently you are unaware that I'm not exactly the first
      LVT advocate to suggest recovering less than 100% of rent
      -- that in fact, Henry George himself also suggested it.

      >Any valuation is subject to error. Experience is
      >the quality most important in valuation.

      No, of coure it isn't. Knowledge of and respect for the
      relevant facts is incomparably more important than
      experience. A stupid, miseducated, deluded, dishonest,
      sloppy and incompetent appraiser with 40 years of
      "experience" will be less competent and less accurate than
      an intelligent, thoughtful, informed, honest and diligent
      appraiser with only four years' experience.

      >You suggest that overvaluing Rent by 1% will lead
      >to horrendous consequences.

      No, I identified the fact that overcollecting it by 1%
      would lead to worse consequences than undercollecting it by

      I have asked you repeatedly what would be lost by
      recovering 99% of rent instead of the 100% you insist is
      necessary, and you have never provided an answer.

      >Yet now "overvaluing"
      >of Rent by private landholders is way above 1%.

      Again, you have never provided any evidence for this claim.

      >Rack-rent takes everything it can, far more than
      >1% of Rent.

      Evidence = 0.

      >However, you don't understand rack-rent so you cannot
      >understand the insignificance of that 1%.

      I understand the fact that you have never been able to
      provide any factual or logical support for your claims that
      rack-rent is both pervasive and significant relative to
      rent. You also employ a definition of rack-rent which is
      not supported by any dictionary I am aware of.

      >Reducing the valuations by 1% is a political decision.
      >As I mentioned, in California (and other places) they
      >reduce the valuations by 75% - then increase the rate.

      Irrelevant, as rate x valuation is nowhere near the full
      land rent in CA.

      >You say:

      >"At the margin, the effect on allocation of
      >over-charging land users is far out of proportion
      >to the effect of under-charging them the same amount.
      >Therefore, targeting 100% rent recovery is a foolish
      >notion that ignores the known effects of investor
      >risk aversion."

      >You apparently have nothing to support this contention.

      No, you are just ignorant of the fact that it is supported
      by actual historical examples, such as the abandonment of
      land in the Late Roman Empire because of over-taxation, as
      well as by a copious economics literature regarding risk.

      "Nothing to support this contention" would, however, more
      accurately describe the situation regarding your own claims
      about rack-rent and the imagined necessity to recover
      exactly 100% of rent.

      >Apparently, you don't know that the margin is "the
      >best available rent-free land".

      Wrong. Apparently, you are also ignorant of the fact that
      in economics, "the margin" refers to any situation where
      the smallest differences in costs and anticipated returns
      affect economic decisions.

      >Charging Rent on rent-free land is a peculiar thought.

      It is indeed, which is apparently why you fabricated it.

      >You wrote a long paragraph (beginning "Thirdly..." )
      >that I suggested contained many errors.

      Of which you were, inevitably, unable to identify any.

      >Major error is your apparent wish to provide people
      >with welfare exemptions from the 'exorbitant' Rent

      A claim that a uniform, universal tax exemption is
      "welfare" is of course just flatly false, as well as deeply

      >Funnily enough in order to help the poor
      >you will apparently give everyone, including Bill
      >Gates, exemptions.

      No, that is just another fabrication on your part. I did
      not say it was to help the poor. I said it was to
      compensate everyone for the violation of their rights to
      use land, and to ensure that all had access to sufficient
      land to live on without having to pay any rent, as is their

      >In a Georgist society, Rent is a value created by the
      >community that attaches to a location.

      No, of course it isn't. That is just a meaningless
      concatenation of words you have concocted. Value of what?
      Created how? By what community? "Attaches" how?

      >A user of the
      >location will be benefited by that value. If he pays the
      >Rent it is because he gets it - a zero-sum transaction.

      No, that is of course just flatly false. Rent is
      determined by the most productive available user, not the
      actual user. Those who cannot use land as productively as
      the most productive available user will therefore not be
      able to obtain the full rent by using the land. They will
      therefore be paying more rent than the benefit they get in

      >So your statements that:

      >"If there is no universal LVT exemption, the rights
      >of those who can't afford to pay any rent because
      >they can barely keep food on the table are violated
      >without compensation. "


      >"As relegating them to marginal land that yields
      >no rent would condemn them to destitution and

      >- are a might peculiar.

      No, they are simply facts of which you happen to be

      >Someone who is so unfortunate he can
      >make no use of Rent can use marginal land.

      And starve, as he is not as productive as the most
      productive available user, who will be willing to pay
      $1/acre-year to use that land.

      >In a Georgist society, land would probably be quite
      >productive at the margin.

      No, it most certainly would not, as the absence of any tax
      burden on production would make even very poor land capable
      of yielding at least some rent. How much land could an
      untaxed rancher, eco-tourism operator or trapper afford to
      pay $1/yr rent on?

      >It seems you have a problem understanding Rent as is
      >indicated by this exchange.

      No, the exchange actually proved that I understand rent and
      you do not, because you insist on considering it "a value
      created by the community that attaches to a location,"
      rather than what it is: the additional economic advantage
      obtained by using valuable land rather than marginal land.

      >You said:

      >>Thirdly, not allowing a flat, universal personal
      >>exemption sufficient to ensure everyone's access to
      >>enough land to live on

      >I asked:

      >What will prevent anyone's access to enough land to
      >live on?

      >You replied with customary courtesy:

      >"Lack of wherewithal to pay the rent. Duh."

      >Again, this shows you have little understanding
      >of the nature of Rent.

      No, it actually proves that I know what rent is and you do

      >In a Georgist society, people will freely chose
      >where to work and live.

      No, they most certainly will not, as they will be excluded
      from using all land on which they are unable or unwilling
      to pay the rent. The violation of their right to use such
      land must therefore rightly be compensated.

      >Although, two locations may have identical Rents,
      >one may suit you, the other will not. Less
      >qualified labor may not be able to work or live on
      >New York's Fifth Avenue, but he might well make -
      >and enjoy - a good living in Punxsutawney.

      He might. And he might not. If he is among the least
      productive, he will definitely not.

      >Similarly, you and I might have trouble using Fifth
      >Avenue locations, for the Rents would kill us.

      >Trump would have no problem.

      OTC, Trump appears to have a problem whenever he can't
      wring a tax abatement out of the local city council.

      >You want an exemption from Rent collection because:

      >>depriving people of access to land is a violation of
      >>their rights that must rightly be compensated.

      >Seems to me that I pay Rent to the community because
      >they created it. That seems fair. But the basic
      >reason for paying Rent to the community is that it
      >is a particularly elegant method of achieving a
      >society of 'liberty and justice for all'. It will
      >achieve a genuine 'level playing field'. Its
      >economic advantages are abundant.

      All true. But not relevant to the point.

      >It will ensure
      >"everybody's access to enough land to live on"

      Oh? How?

      >without the need to complicate it with mass
      >exemptions and suchlike palliatives that I have no
      >hesitation in labeling nonsense.

      I have observed your lack of hesitation in embracing error
      and folly before.

      >Your major reason for Rent exemptions appears to
      >be that collection of Rent would lead people to:

      >>"destitution and starvation"

      and that:

      >>"provision for them would have to be made in
      >>public expenditures, "

      >Hey, Roy, if that's the result of collecting Rent
      >I wouldn't support it any longer if I were you.

      It's not the result of collecting rent. That is just
      another fabrication on your part. It's the result of
      depriving people of access to opportunity without just
      compensation, which also happens if rent is NOT collected,
      as the existence of welfare and all the other
      income-support programs proves.

      -- Roy Langston

      Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

    • Harry Pollard
      Scott, Speculative land values (sales prices) attach to even the most inhospitable tracts. Who knows? Maybe next year . . . .? Harry
      Message 40 of 40 , Jun 17, 2008



        Speculative land values (sales prices)  attach to even the most inhospitable tracts.


        Who knows? Maybe next year . . . .?





        Harry Pollard

        Henry George School of Los Angeles

        Box 655

        Tujunga  CA  91042

        (818) 352-4141



        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Bergeson
        Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:02 AM
        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: facing facts


        Quoting Harry Pollard on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:50:16 -0700:

        we cannot produce land, and because it cannot be moved to the
        producer who needs it, the market price mechanism cannot work.

        Could at one time; extend the frontier. Sadly, this often
        involved such atrocities as "ethnic cleansing". The main
        impediment anciently was shipping. Could perhaps again
        if e.g., sea floor could be colonized, LOST permitting.
        Also rafts and artificial upwellings in the ocean, use
        of desert lands, esp. if water can be brought in(*), etc.

        * Is speculation against that possibility a reason
        for high prices for currently-unusable desert lands?


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.