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

Re: [LandCafe] Digest Number 1191

Expand Messages
  • Walter Horn/Carol Calliotte
    The Value Capture/Land Tax Idea FactoryFor what it s worth, I published a couple of papers in the Journal of Economics and Sociology back in 1984 on Rothbard
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The Value Capture/Land Tax  Idea Factory
      For what it's worth, I published a couple of papers in the Journal of Economics and Sociology back in 1984 on Rothbard and Nozick and their views on private property in land.
       
      Best,
       
      W 
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:32 AM
      Subject: [LandCafe] Digest Number 1191

      Messages In This Digest (5 Messages)

      1.
      Georgists in Kansas City From: Trevor Acorn
      2a.
      Re: The real Rothbard Fallacy From: Fred Foldvary
      3a.
      Re: Land Tax & Recession From: bruno moser
      4.1.
      Re: Terminology From: Roy Langston
      5a.
      Re: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy From: Harry Pollard

      Messages

      1.

      Georgists in Kansas City

      Posted by: "Trevor Acorn" tjacorn@...   tjacorn

      Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:43 am (PDT)

      After a long hiatus, I'm back at the cafe. And I've since moved from the
      wonderful city of St. Louis to Cowtown, Mo (Kansas City). Are there any
      regulars on this list in KC?

      I hope everything has been going well around here. I'm sure I missed a lot.

      Trevor
      2a.

      Re: The real Rothbard Fallacy

      Posted by: "Fred Foldvary" ffoldvary@...   fred.foldvary

      Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:03 am (PDT)

      From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@ ca.rr.com>

      > "The first consequence of the single-tax (on land values) is that
      no revenue would accrue from it. Far from supplying all the revenue
      of government, the single tax would yield no revenue at all!" 
      Rothbard <

      > Rothbard was saying that if Rent was collected, land would be worth nothing so there would be nothing to tax.<

      No, he did not say that. He said that rent would fall to zero.
       
      > I'm doing a criticism of it for the libertarians.
       
      See the recent edition of Critics of Henry George, since Rothbard was influenced by Spencer Heath, who turned against Georgism.

      Fred Foldvary

      3a.

      Re: Land Tax & Recession

      Posted by: "bruno moser" bruno.moser@...

      Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:46 am (PDT)

      let's do it now. the pain is lessend when we at least stop those criminals
      going on until total enslavement.

      Let the Zeitgeist sink in for a moment with regard to funding a citizen's
      dividend on very local level.

      Zeitgeist: Addendum 2/13

      http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6YurhFvPy14& feature=related

      b., theTell
      <http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6YurhFvPy14& feature=related>

      --
      International Land Economics
      Philadelphia, Hanoi, Les Prés-d'Orvin

      On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Fred Foldvary <ffoldvary@yahoo. com> wrote:

      > --- On Thu, 10/9/08, loganboettcher <loganboettcher@ yahoo.com<loganboettcher% 40yahoo.com> >
      > wrote:
      >
      > 1. If you had a magic button, would you implement the full LVT
      > program immediately, knowing how the world's financial system operates?
      >
      > Yes. Those with net losse would be compensated with bonds.
      >
      > 2. Would the resulting financial crisis damage the productive economy
      > too much, despite the economic superiority of the LVT program? Or
      > would the finance sector dependent on real estate leverage bleed out
      > while "Main Street" limped along for a short time before a quick recovery?
      >
      > There would be no financial crises if there were compensation.
      >
      > 3. How could an assessor approximately determine how much land rent
      > should be paid in a land bust that we are seeing currently?
      >
      > The real estate market still operates.
      >
      > 4. Would the LVT program be too dangerous to implement during a
      > recession and should Georgists just wait until everything shakes out
      > and credit markets return to normal?
      >
      > Done the right way, LVT would help, as it would be a pay raise for workers
      > and merchants.
      >
      > Fred Foldvary
      >
      >
      4.1.

      Re: Terminology

      Posted by: "Roy Langston" roy_langston1@...   roy_langston1

      Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:46 pm (PDT)

      Dan Sullivan wrote:

      >On 10 Oct 2008 at 12:28, Roy Langston wrote:

      >> Dan Sullivan wrote:
      >>
      >> >On 9 Oct 2008 at 9:21, Roy Langston wrote:
      >>
      >> >> The people who will interpret recovery of the publicly created
      >> >> economic rent of natural resources for the purposes and
      >> >> benefit of the public that creates it as "nationalization" are
      >> >> called, "liars."
      >>
      >> >Not if they sincerely believe it. They are neither liars nor fools, but
      >> >merely people who don't see things as you do.
      >
      >> I meant those who interpret it as nationalization even after
      >> they know it isn't. Obviously, if someone doesn't know
      >> anything about Georgism but some idiot's assertion that
      >> "Georgism is communism," or Henry George saying, "We must
      >> make land common property," then interpreting that as land
      >> nationalization is understandable. I meant the people who
      >> have been informed, and who understand, that what is actually
      >> being proposed is recovery of the publicly created economic
      >> rent of natural resources for the purposes and benefit of the
      >> public that creates it. There is no honest way to interpret
      >> that as nationalization. Those who do so may mainly be lying
      >> to themselves, but they are still lying.

      >With all that added qualification, you reduce your prior statement to a
      >tautology. Of course those who say something they know to be false
      >are liars.

      No, lying also requires intent to deceive. That is the point. It is not a question of not seeing things as I do, but of blank refusal to know the facts that prove their beliefs are false.

      >The point is that very few people know it to be false, even
      >after it is explained to them. Sometimes they simply fail to believe the
      >explanation because it is so contrary to their belief system. "Cognitive
      >dissonance" prevents simple syllogisms from derailing elaborate
      >constructs.

      That is why they start lying. They are married to their false belief systems, and defend them by lying about land rent recovery. Once they understand the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality and their inescapable logical implications, they start to lie about those facts, routinely making absurd claims they KNOW to be false, like:

      "Natural resources are products human labor."
      "Land cannot be used by anyone until after someone has used it to make useful land."
      "Land in Hong Kong is privately owned because the leases are equivalent to ownership."
      "If I always have to pay a tax on my land in order to keep it, I'm not the owner; the government is."
      "Land has to be discovered before it can be used, so its rent is the rightful earnings of the discoverer or whoever he sold the land to."

      This is a predictable pattern of bald, deliberate lying which I have seen repeated many, many times.

      >Even after hearing explanations ad nauseum, these people are not
      >necessarily liars. Even saying that they are in denial is not necessarily
      >correct, and is rarely constructive, as sometimes they have simply
      >missed a key element that reconciles what we are telling them with
      >what they know to be true.

      IME, once the elements are all in place, and the logical implications are indisputable, they start lying in order to delete enough of the elements from their consciousness to undercut the implications.

      >> IMO, recognizing the fact that the hardcore opposition to
      >> land rent recovery is driven by nothing other than conscious,
      >> deliberate evil in the service of greed is crucial to the
      >> success of our efforts. As Sun Tzu advised, "know your
      >> enemy."

      >But it's not a fact. Much hard-core opposition to land rent recovery is
      >driven by unconscious superstition.

      When those superstitions are exploded by fact and logic, they start lying in order to rebuild them.

      >What you describe is a
      >prescription for hating your enemy, not for knowing him.

      The greatest evil in the history of the world, and those who knowingly choose to serve and perpetuate it, are appropriate objects of hatred. How much evil has been done because no one stood up, pointed his finger at the perpetrators and said, "What you are advocating, sir, is evil. And YOU, PERSONALLY, are evil for advocating it"?

      When Bush proposed to attack Iraq with the "Bush Doctrine" excuse of "preemptive self-defense, " did anyone stand up in Congress and say, "No, this proposed attack on a country that has neither attacked nor credibly threatened to attack the United States is evil; the justifications for it are dishonest and evil; and the man proposing it is an evil man who deserves only our contempt and hatred"? How much of America's moral standing in the world, how much of her wealth, how many innocent lives might have been spared by one such act of courage: to identify evil clearly, publicly, confidently, and to hate it likewise?

      >> Again, I meant those who understand the actual content of
      >> what we propose, not those who just ignorantly chant
      >> anti-geoist lies. Please try to read what I wrote as
      >> carefully as I wrote it.

      >Actually, you are asking me to read what you wish you had written.

      No, I am still trying to get you to address what I wrote in clear English.

      >Please try to write more carefully in the first place.

      I wrote carefully as well as clearly. I know that is a fact because it is my profession, and my clients pay me well for my skill at it. Please reread what I wrote without the assumption that I must mean something else, until you understand it.

      >> They may not think of it as plunder, but in fact that is
      >> their desire: to get wealth without earning it.

      >I think that is an unkind and unwarranted way of putting it.

      I.e., it is another unacceptable truth.

      >Of course they are trying to satisfy their desires with the least >exertion, as we all do.

      Some of us include justice among the desires we seek to satisfy. The greedy and evil do not desire justice. They seek to satisfy their desires with the least effort by getting something for nothing, inflicting injustice on others by violating their rights without making just compensation. That is the landowners' creed, and the creed of all evildoers.

      >That does not mean that they have any conscious desire to steal, or
      >any sense that what they are doing is stealing. Indeed, to their minds
      >they *have* earned it, and have simply played society's game
      >intelligently and by the rules.

      By just such "arguments," slave owners also rationalized their participation in and support for systematic, institutionalized evil.

      >> Of course, almost all the people who oppose LVT would pay
      >> less total tax under LVT than they do now. That is a given.
      >> The point is, they would rather pay $10K in taxes on their
      >> earnings and get to pocket $5K in rent than pay $5K in rent
      >> and get to keep the additional $10K they earned. I have
      >> explained this relationship to many, many people, and for the
      >> most part they simply refuse to part with that unearned
      >> income, no matter what the cost in earned income. They KNOW
      >> they would be $10K/yr better off, but they refuse to part
      >> with the unearned portion.

      >Now you are simply not getting it, and are almost a perfect example of
      >the very people you were calling liars. It simply is not true that these
      >people would be parting with any income, earned or otherwise, due to
      >a shift in land value tax.

      ?? Yes, of course it is true. There'd be no point to land rent recovery if it weren't. They see their house appreciate in value by $5K without their lifting a finger, and that delicious, sensuous, sinful sensation of getting something for nothing overwhelms any awareness that they are paying $10K in unnecessary taxes on the wages of their labor in order to get that unearned $5K.

      >All your suppositions above stem from your
      >own congnitive dissonance at the prospect of being wrong.

      LOL! Right back atcha, champ...

      >> IME, people generally do "get it." They just prefer to get
      >> some unearned wealth by owning land, even at the expense of
      >> losing even more of their earned wealth to subsidize those
      >> who own more land and earn less wealth than they do. It is
      >> just a perverse fact of human nature, the same sort of
      >> irrationality that makes people buy lottery tickets.

      >Well, there's getting an argument (which is what you usually give
      >people) and getting *it*. Those who get *it* not only see that the
      >argument is correct, but see how the world would become vastly more
      >pleasant for them.

      Perhaps this is where we fundamentally differ. IMO it is quite possible for people to know what is being proposed and still NOT to understand how the world would become vastly more pleasant for them, just as it was possible for non-slave owners in the antebellum South to understand what emancipation was without understanding how it would make the world more congenial for them.

      I take the mentality of the lottery player seriously, and IMO there is something very similar going on in the minds of those who are not major landowners, yet still oppose rent recovery: they nevertheless see themselves as _potentially_ major landowners, riders at their ease on the escalator that the producers' treadmill powers, being lifted ever upward into status and affluence without having to contribute anything in return. Like lottery players, they hold fast to the fantasy that they will never realize, and ignore the real cost they are paying over and over again, day after day, year after year, for their whole lives. And like the lottery player, the non-landowner and small landowner react with indignation to any suggestion that the scam that exploits them with bogus promises of opportunity to join the privileged should be done away with.

      Please take some time to consider this parallel.

      >> But it is their choice to embrace that mindset,
      >> just as it was the choice of many people who did not own
      >> slaves in the antebellum South to rationalize and defend and
      >> excuse and justify slavery even though it was not in their
      >> personal interests.

      >Calling it a "choice" puts the Christian doctrine of "free will" on your
      >side, but marshalls the bulk of psychological science against you.
      >Very few people consciously decide what their belief systems are.

      But they consciously choose to lie to preserve them.

      >> One of the people whom I converted to geoist thinking told me
      >> he hated me for calling him a liar, but the epiphany came when
      >> he realized that he in fact WAS lying, to himself as well as
      >> to me.

      >Well, every witch doctor has a success story here and there. It doesn't
      >make the medicine sound.

      IMO it is extremely difficult to know which "medicines" will be effective in communicating our message to the general populace and which will not. One thing is certain: none of the medicines tried over the last 250-odd years has worked. I am trying a new medicine: just being as clear and honest as I can.

      Part of that is being willing to know the fact that there is such a thing as evil in this world. _Billions_ of innocent people are robbed and oppressed and injured and tormented to despair by it every year. Millions _perish_ of it every year. EVERY YEAR.

      Evil is real, and it persists because some choose to serve it by rationalizing and excusing and justifying and defending it. Such people are also evil. When opponents of land rent recovery essay blatantly and despicably dishonest "arguments" in their responses to me (like, "You just want to take other people's land for yourself because you are too lazy and greedy to get a job and work for it like everybody else"), I know that I am seeing evil at work, the same kind of evil that has sought to justify slavery, fascism, communism, hereditary monarchy, etc. I identify it as such.

      If that makes me a "witch doctor," make the most of it.

      -- Roy Langston

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta. messenger. yahoo.com/

      5a.

      Re: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy

      Posted by: "Harry Pollard" henrygeorgeschool@...   haledward1

      Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:53 pm (PDT)

      Yisroel,

      You have taken my description of the situation now and grafted it on
      to a Georgist economy. When I said that:

      "Somewhere along the way, enough will be collected to make non-use and
      under-use of sites a practical impossibility. "

      You replied:

      "You mean VALUABLE sites, not all sites!"

      I replied that all sites are valuable "inasmuch you will have to pay
      to acquire them", and went on to describe Rothbard's suggestion to buy
      even the most useless do they will be part of the market economy.

      I then pointed out that "The reason an apparently useless site is held
      is because the burden of holding it is low, or non-existent. When land
      is appraised using capital values and a full Rent payment is paid, the
      useless piece of
      land will incur a cost that may make holding a no-no."

      In other words, I was talking about the present situation and how it
      would change in a Georgist economy.

      This means several of your comments including the ad hominem are not
      pertinent to the discussion. However, I think it was an honest mistake
      probably because I wasn't clear enough.

      However, the important issue (both here and in the UK)is the matter of
      assessing a capital price of land in a Georgist economy when all the
      Rent has been collected.

      You say below: "Under heavy LVT most land will have no rent and
      therefore no exchange value."

      This isn't true, but you seem to be saying that in the market, land
      will no market value. How then can it have a capital value? The
      capital value of something with a market value of nothing is nothing.
      If you base your assessment and collection on nothing, you will
      collect nothing. (This peculiar idea was advanced by Rothbard who
      seemed to be accepting a Georgist contention that assessment should be
      based on capital value. That's why I suggested that perhaps we are
      responsible for his error.

      Now, let's go back to the nature of Rent. I'll repeat what I said in
      an earlier post on this thread:

      " Rent is a value that attaches to a location - a value that aids
      production."

      Rent is a consequence of the presence and access of the surrounding
      community, so it is just that they get it back.

      So when you say: "Under heavy LVT most land will have no rent and
      therefore no exchange value." - it appears you are agreeing with me.

      Whether Rent is collected privately, or by the community, whether or
      not it is taken indirectly by other taxation, the value that the
      location provides its user remains. If he sells shoes at an urban
      location and the Rent is $100 a week, then with the same application
      of labor and capital, he will receive $100 more from his efforts than
      he would at the margin.

      Whether or not the $100 a week goes to Jeff Smith or the community
      doesn't alter the amount of Rent that attaches to that location. Once
      again, Rent is not a tax, or a something levied or collected by
      someone. It is a value created by the community that attaches to a
      location. (That's a short version, but it says what needs to be said.)

      One of the seemingly more difficult notions to teach to adults is
      capitalization. If you put $2,000 in the bank at 5% interest, you
      should get $100 a year back. That's easy. If you have an annual income
      of $100 - same interest rate - you could sell it for around $2,000.
      That's apparently not so easy.

      If your income falls to $50, using the same procedure, you will
      probably be able to sell it for $1,000. If your income falls to $25,
      expect it to sell for $500. You can see where I'm going. If the income
      disappears, its capitalized sales price disappears too. If the value
      that attaches to a location is collected by the community, then its
      sales price disappears, for there is nothing for the landholder to
      sell.

      If John or Mase (or anyone) have argued against this contention, I
      would love to hear what they have to say.

      As Mase has said, we have to get our hands dirty in the real world of
      capital assessment and this is true. But sooner, or later, we will
      need to change to direct assessment of Rent. (Sooner is better than
      later.)

      I'll reply to your other remarks below between lines.

      Harry

      ************ ********* ********* *
      Harry Pollard
      Henry George School of Los Angeles
      Box 655
      Tujunga CA 91042
      (818) 352-4141
      ************ ********* ********* *

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Yisroel [mailto:yisroel@dslextreme. com]
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:31 PM
      To: Harry Pollard; 'Mason Gaffney'; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
      Cc: land-theory@ yahoogroups. com; 'Land Theory'; 'Land-Cafe-Group
      lcf1)'; 'Fred Foldvary'; 'Michael Hudson'; HWBatt@yahoo. com;
      'Catherine Orloff'; Hanno Beck; Mike O'Mara; Richard Biddle; David
      Giesen; Edward Dodson; Scott Shore; Polly Cleveland; Michael Scott
      Moore; Joshua Vincent; Lindy Davies; Jeffery J. Smith; Nadine Stoner;
      WAFrambach@aol. com; 'Wyn Achenbaum'; Frank Walker
      Subject: Re: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy

      Harry,

      Please post this to the groups land-theory@ yahoogroups. com
      <land-theory@ yahoogroups. com> , 'Land Theory'
      <landtheory@yahoogro ups.com>,
      and 'Land-Cafe-Group lcf1)' <LandCafe@yahoogroup s.com>, as I am not a
      member
      and cannot post there. -- Yisroel

      Harry writes (see email below for full context):

      All sites are valuable, inasmuch you will have to pay to acquire them.
      (We'll exclude quicksand and bogs and suchlike, though the excluded
      will likely have a price too.)

      Yisroel responds: Under heavy LVT most land will have no rent and
      therefore
      no exchange value.

      Harry writes: Land that is apparently without much value will
      probably have
      a price.

      Yisroel responds: This is an absurd statement that reflects a
      fundamental
      lack of understanding of georgism.
      ************ *******
      The situation now not under Georgism.
      ************ *******

      Harry writes: Actually Rothbard applauded the fact that apparently
      useless
      land will
      have a price and therefore be part of the market system. If I recall
      correctly, he encouraged the acquisition of "useless" land, probably
      because he couldn't bear to have anything outside the market system.

      Yisroel responds: Why should we be wasting time discussing wacko
      libertarian Rothbard's anal compulsion to have an owner for
      everything, even
      for (or perhaps especially for) "useless" land?

      ************ ********* ***
      Look above at the subject line of this thread.
      ************ ********* ***

      Harry writes: The reason an apparently useless site is held is
      because the
      burden of holding it is low, or non-existent. When land is appraised
      using
      capital values and a full Rent payment is paid, the useless piece of
      land will incur a cost that may make holding a no-no.

      Yisroel responds: This precisely the whole point and goal of Georgism
      -- to
      compel by fiscal means the great "letting go" by land monopolists and
      land
      speculators, which will tremendously raise the margin of production
      and thus
      greatly raise wages, eliminate involuntary unemploymewnt and liberate
      labor
      and society as a whole, transforming it into a vast, great, free
      coopertative of relative economic equals from a hierarchical
      wage-slavery
      system enforced by state-backed legal and physical force.

      Harry writes: Meantime, land better than the hopeless sited [sic --
      you
      mean site, I think. -- YP] will acquire a [yearly tax -- YP] burden
      that is
      inconsequential if it is being used properly, but which is a problem
      if the
      land is unused, or underused. The landholder will use it or lose it.

      ************ ********* **
      Should have used the adverb "hopelessly" before sited. Thank you for
      your grammatical correction.
      ************ ********* **

      Yisroel responds: No, Harry. You are wrong, and I can't believe you
      have
      been a professional Georgist your whole life. This is precisely HG's
      point:
      an abundance of very highly productive land (i.e., far above the
      "hopeless"
      category) will become freely available --without the payment of rent
      or
      sales price -- to whomever wishes to use it. This is what will
      dramatically
      raise the level of WAGES -- the forgotten term and concept, and the
      abandoned focus -- of almost all modern Georgist practitioners,
      including
      you, apparently.

      ************ ********* *
      Never said it wouldn't. However, if Wages are tied to the "best
      available Rent-free land" the fact that there would be great
      quantities of good unused land below the margin is not an issue.
      Actually, I tell the high school kids that with cities becominig
      compact and efficient, we might find lions invading the empty areas of
      the San Fernando Valley.
      ************ ********* *

      Yisroel continues his response: The monopoly/speculativ e bloated
      price of
      land is the conveniently invisible wall that encloses the entire,
      worldwide
      wage-slavery system. Heavy LVT will demolish that wall and open up
      very
      highly productive lands, including an abundance of highlt productive
      lands
      which will nevertheless yield no rent and therefore command no price.
      Doesn't anyone besides me get it? Harry obviously does not. Are we
      so
      accustomed to living in this land-monopoly/ wage-slavery prison that we
      can't
      understand or visualize what economic and social life would be like
      when
      speculative and monopoly landholding patterns are naturally destroyed
      by
      LVT?

      ************ *********
      You appear to have discovered something of which we have been aware
      for a long time. I have been teaching such things for more than 50
      years. However, I'm glad you are aboard.
      ************ *********

      Harry writes: There is so much land in the category of unused, or
      underused, that the 'lost' land will flood the market and make a lot
      of sites that are
      presently marketing [being sold -- YP] for large sums to become free
      (or
      almost free depending on the infrastructure that serves them). This is
      particularly true of the umpteen square miles of suburban land which
      is massively overpriced. Those prices (and Rents) will fall like
      leaves in an autumn forest, leaving marginal and sub marginal land
      (except for the infrastructure influence I mention above) in great
      quantities.

      Yisroel responds: Now, Harry, I think maybe you actually do "get it"
      (I
      mean georgism) after all.

      Harry writes: However, though this land will be marginal or sub
      marginal,
      it doesn't mean it has no value. It's use-value may be rather
      worthwhile. Several
      acres of vacant land not too far from a central city might make a
      fortune for someone who knows how to grow broccoli on this sub
      marginal land.

      Yisroel responds: What you mean, Harry, is that although marginal and

      submarginal land will have no rent and therefore no exchange value,
      they
      will still have use value and may nevertheless still be highly
      productive or
      have high productive potential. (As a matter of definitional
      precision,
      Harry, you should call any free land that is being used "marginal"
      rather
      than "submarginal. ")

      ************ *********
      Thanks for your correction.

      Yet, if the "best available rent-free" land is marginal, anything less
      productive than marginal would be submarginal.
      ************ ********

      Harry writes: Some time ago, the LA Times ran a story of the black
      entrepreneur who
      supplied black-eyed peas to South-East Los Angeles. My reaction was
      not 'well done', but why aren't there 20 black entrepreneurs supplying
      black-eyed peas? [In that neighborhood, perhaps he was lucky he
      wasn't a
      "black-eyed" entrepreneur. -- YP]

      Harry continues: If land was not monopoly priced, of course there
      would be.
      When productive marginal and sub marginal land became free there would
      probably be 100 growers and a variety of crops - one of the economic
      benefits of collecting rent.

      Yisroel previously wrote: At a tax rate of 100 percent applied
      against full
      market value, all the land in Manhattan, for example, will still have
      a very
      large capitalized value/selling price that can still be taxed via LVT.
      Surely you must see this, Harry.

      Harry now writes: "A tax rate of 100% applied against full market
      value"
      would presumably take all market value, so what is left?

      But, perhaps by "full market value" you meant rent.

      Yisroel responds: I meant "At a tax rate of 100 percent applied
      against full
      [capitalized] market value [i.e., selling price]." An LVT tax rate of
      100
      percent applied against the capitalized market value of a parcel of
      land in
      Manhattan will NOT collect all the rent for the community and will not
      take
      all the market value. Please see John Monroe's and/or Mason Gaffney's
      LVT-applied- to-selling- price/capitalize d values formulas. I think you
      can
      probably also ask Ted Gwartney to confirm that. An LVT tax rate
      applied
      against capitalized market value of valuable (normally supramarginal
      land)
      will not capture all the land rent no matter how high the tax rate.
      Ask
      Mason to explain that to you.

      Harry writes: If I had a site with a $5,000 Rent, (assuming 5%) I
      would
      probably sell that Rent income to you for around $100,000.

      Yisroel responds: You mean $5000 after-proptax net rent; not gross
      rent.

      Harry writes: If the community collected that Rent, what would I be
      able to
      sell to you? I can't sell you the Rent - that's gone.

      Yisroel responds: See my above response that begins with "I meant".
      Also,
      see John Monroes's 1050 chart/diagram, which clearly illustrates this
      point.

      Harry writes: What else can I sell you? Maybe you will offer me a
      $5,000
      sweetener
      to transfer it to you rather than Donald Trump. On the other hand, I
      might check with Trump and find he'll give me $10,000.

      Neither of these sums are Rent. Rent is in the hands of the community
      and is not available for sale.

      I have no idea where you get the idea that after the $5000 Rent has
      been collected by the community, there will still be "a very large
      capitalized value/selling price that can still be taxed via LVT.

      Yisroel responds: Please see my prior responses in this section.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@ ca.rr.com>
      To: "'Yisroel'" <yisroel@dslextreme. com>; "'Mason Gaffney'"
      <m.gaffney@dslextrem e.com>; "'Jeffery J. Smith'" <jjs@geonomics. org>;
      "'Frank Walker'" <frank_walker@ mac.com>
      Cc: <land-theory@ yahoogroups. com>; "'Land Theory'"
      <landtheory@yahoogro ups.com>; "'Land-Cafe- Group lcf1)'"
      <LandCafe@yahoogroup s.com>; "'Fred Foldvary'" <fred@foldvary. net>;
      "'Michael
      Hudson'" <michael.hudson@ earthlink. net>
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 1:11 PM
      Subject: RE: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy

      > Yisroel.
      >
      > See below between lines.
      >
      > Harry
      >
      > ************ ********* ********* *
      > Harry Pollard
      > Henry George School of Los Angeles
      > Box 655
      > Tujunga CA 91042
      > (818) 352-4141
      > ************ ********* ********* *
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Yisroel [mailto:yisroel@dslextreme. com]
      > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:27 AM
      > To: Harry Pollard; 'Mason Gaffney'; 'Jeffery J. Smith'; 'Frank
      Walker'
      > Cc: land-theory@ yahoogroups. com; 'Land Theory'; 'Land-Cafe-Group
      > lcf1)'; 'Fred Foldvary'; 'Michael Hudson'
      > Subject: Re: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy
      >
      > Harry wrote:
      >
      > "Yet, if you remove some
      > productivity taxes, and raise land-value taxes a bit, there will
      > obviously be a favorable economic impact. This will become stronger
      as
      > the amount of Rent collected increases. Somewhere along the way,
      > enough will be collected to make non-use and under-use of sites a
      > practical impossibility.
      >
      > "At this point, land will flood the market and prices will collapse
      > (long before 100% of Rent is collected)."
      >
      > As regards this: "Somewhere along the way, enough will be collected
      > to make
      > non-use and under-use of sites a practical impossibility. " You mean
      > VALUABLE sites, not all sites!
      > Many sites -- millions of acres -- will become marginal or sub
      > marginal land
      > and will have NO value; therefore your blanket assertion here will
      NOT
      > be
      > applicable to them!
      >
      > ************ ****
      > All sites are valuable, inasmuch you will have to pay to acquire
      them.
      > (We'll exclude quicksand and bogs and suchlike, though the excluded
      > will likely have a price too.)
      >
      > Land that is apparently without much value will probably have a
      price.
      > Actually Rothbard applauded the fact that apparently useless land
      will
      > have a price and therefore be part of the market system. If I recall
      > correctly, he encouraged the acquisition of "useless" land, probably
      > because he couldn't bear to have anything outside the market system.
      >
      > The reason an apparently useless site is held is because the burden
      of
      > holding it is low, or non-existent. When land is appraised using
      > capital values and a full Rent payment is paid, the useless piece of
      > land will incur a cost that may make holding a no-no.
      >
      > Meantime, land better than the hopeless sited will acquire a burden
      > that is inconsequential if it is being used properly, but which is a
      > problem if the land is unused, or underused. The landholder will use
      > it or lose it.
      >
      > There is so much land in the category of unused, or underused, that
      > the 'lost' land will flood the market and make a lot of sites that
      are
      > presently marketing for large sums to become free (or almost free
      > depending on the infrastructure that serves them). This is
      > particularly true of the umpteen square miles of suburban land which
      > is massively overpriced. Those prices (and Rents) will fall like
      > leaves in an autumn forest.
      >
      > Leaving marginal and sub marginal land (except for the
      infrastructure
      > influence I mention above) in great quantities.
      >
      > However, though this land will be marginal or sub marginal, it
      doesn't
      > mean it has no value. It's use-value may be rather worthwhile.
      Several
      > acres of vacant land not too far from a central city might make a
      > fortune for someone who knows how to grow broccoli on this sub
      > marginal land.
      >
      > Some time ago, the LA Times ran a story of the black entrepreneur
      who
      > supplied black-eyed peas to South-East Los Angeles. My reaction was
      > not 'well done', but why aren't there 20 black entrepreneurs
      supplying
      > black-eyed peas?
      >
      > If land was not monopoly priced, of course there would be. When
      > productive marginal and sub marginal land became free there would
      > probably be 100 growers and a variety of crops - one of the economic
      > benefits of collecting rent.
      > ************ ****
      >
      > As regards this "At this point, land will flood the market and
      prices
      > will
      > collapse
      > (long before 100% of Rent is collected)." Prices will only disappear
      > on
      > marginal and sub marginal lands; certainly you must understand this,
      > Harry.
      > All land parcels are unique and are uniquely situated. (Per your
      prior
      >
      > suggestion, let's ignore farms, mines and other subsoil resource
      lands
      > for
      > this discussion) . At a tax rate of 100 percent applied against
      full
      > market
      > value, all the land in Manhattan, for example, will still have a
      very
      > large
      > capitalized value/selling price that can still be taxed via LVT.
      > Surely you
      > must see this, Harry.
      >
      > ************ ********* *****
      > Two problems here, Yisroel.
      >
      > "A tax rate of 100% applied against full market value" would
      > presumably take all market value, so what is left?
      >
      > But, perhaps by "full market value" you meant rent.
      >
      > If I had a site with a $5,000 Rent, (assuming 5%) I would probably
      > sell that Rent income to you for around $100,000.
      >
      > If the community collected that Rent, what would I be able to sell
      to
      > you? I can't sell you the Rent - that's gone.
      >
      > What else can I sell you? Maybe you will offer me a $5,000 sweetener
      > to transfer it to you rather than Donald Trump. On the other hand, I
      > might check with Trump and find he'll give me $10,000.
      >
      > Neither of these sums are Rent. Rent is in the hands of the
      community
      > and is not available for sale.
      >
      > I have no idea where you get the idea that after the $5000 Rent has
      > been collected by the community, there will still be "a very large
      > capitalized value/selling price that can still be taxed via LVT.
      > ************ ********* *****
      >
      >
      > Yisroel
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@ ca.rr.com>
      > To: "'Mason Gaffney'" <m.gaffney@dslextrem e.com>; "'Yisroel'"
      > <yisroel@dslextreme. com>; "'Jeffery J. Smith'" <jjs@geonomics. org>;
      > "'Frank
      > Walker'" <frank_walker@ mac.com>
      > Cc: <land-theory@ yahoogroups. com>; "'Land Theory'"
      > <landtheory@yahoogro ups.com>; "'Land-Cafe- Group lcf1)'"
      > <LandCafe@yahoogroup s.com>; "'Fred Foldvary'" <fred@foldvary. net>;
      > "'Michael
      > Hudson'" <michael.hudson@ earthlink. net>
      > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 4:13 PM
      > Subject: RE: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy
      >
      >
      >> (The subject is location value in cities, not farm fertility and
      >> suchlike.)
      >>
      >> Agreed!
      >>
      >> But, I said " a Georgist economy" which of course will be Utopian.
      >>
      >> "In our lifetimes" as I've said, assessors use anything they've got
      >> and they have selling prices.
      >>
      >> But the sales prices will disappear - a contention which appears to
      > be
      >> debated..
      >>
      >> If Rent is recaptured by the community, what is there to sell
      (other
      >> than the personal values I've mentioned elsewhere)?
      >>
      >> How much would you pay for nothing?
      >>
      >> One can certainly pay out money for an anticipated increase, but
      > that
      >> doesn't work where assessments are raised to capture the increase.
      >> While having a coffee, Ted can press a few computer keys and amend
      >> valuations to include increases.
      >>
      >> So I see no land sales prices in Utopia. Better assess Rent
      > directly.
      >>
      >> Much has been made of land values increasing when a small amount of
      >> land-value collected.
      >>
      >> This is noticeable in "Two-Rate" places. Yet, if you remove some
      >> productivity taxes, and raise land-value taxes a bit, there will
      >> obviously be a favorable economic impact. This will become stronger
      > as
      >> the amount of Rent collected increases. Somewhere along the way,
      >> enough will be collected to make non-use and under-use of sites a
      >> practical impossibility.
      >>
      >> At this point, land will flood the market and prices will collapse
      >> (long before 100% of Rent is collected).
      >>
      >> If we are not valuing Rent directly at that point, we will be in
      >> trouble. We should remember the Danish Georgists were in a strong
      >> position - close to utopia (?) - when the ground was taken out from
      >> under them (a double-entendre if I've ever met one).
      >>
      >> Decades of success were lost in practically an instant and
      > land-value
      >> taxes became a minor revenue provider.
      >>
      >> We get some good results from the PA Two-Rate Campaign. An
      important
      >> question is have we got the will to move from the comparative
      > comfort
      >> of Two-Rate success to the slings and arrows of a full Georgist
      >> society, which necessarily includes land without price.
      >>
      >> Harry
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ************ ********* ********* *
      >> Harry Pollard
      >> Henry George School of Los Angeles
      >> Box 655
      >> Tujunga CA 91042
      >> (818) 352-4141
      >> ************ ********* ********* *
      >>
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: Mason Gaffney [mailto:m.gaffney@dslextrem e.com]
      >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:33 AM
      >> To: 'Harry Pollard'; 'Yisroel'; 'Jeffery J. Smith'; 'Frank Walker'
      >> Cc: land-theory@ yahoogroups. com; 'Land Theory'; 'Land-Cafe-Group
      >> lcf1)'; 'Fred Foldvary'; 'Michael Hudson'
      >> Subject: RE: Georgists & the Rothbard Fallacy
      >>
      >> As we near Utopia I'd be glad to consider taxing rent instead of
      >> selling price, but in our lifetimes selling price is better, as we
      >> segue from here towards there. By all means let us dream great
      > dreams,
      >> but during our waking hours also get our hands dirty with life as
      it
      >> is.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> From: Harry Pollard [mailto:henrygeorgeschool@ ca.rr.com]
      >> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:34 PM
      >> To: 'Yisroel'; 'Jeffery J. Smith'; 'Frank Walker'
      >> Cc: land-theory@ yahoogroups. com

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.