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

Re: [LandCafe] LVT discussion needs input

Expand Messages
  • Dan Ped
    Thks a lot David Corrections made and up-loaded ... I will e-mail you a copy of the actual movie file b.rgds dan Dan Pedersen From: David Reed
    Message 1 of 34 , Nov 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Thks a lot David
      Corrections made and up-loaded

      Harry:
      >I just get "movie not loaded"?

      I will e-mail you a copy of the actual movie file

      b.rgds
      dan

      Dan Pedersen




      From: David Reed <dbcreed@...>
      Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM
      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] LVT discussion needs input
      To: land cafe <landcafe@yahoogroups.com>

      A few typos:page headed Politicians have failed by allowing ...line1 suggest
      Property consists of.
      Last page black line 3 Improves
      line 4 suggest Is a payment based on location benefits rather
      than work
      line 6 generates
      line 6.5 can be divied out.
      Would n't presume to comment on the content of such a well-put-together
      movie.( Pity there' s no room for late inclusion of Mark Wadsworth's graph
      on his blog Wednesday which is strikingly visual ).
      This movie strikes me as excellent but I am familiar with the argument.We
      really need to hear from the House price Crash forum visitor who is coming
      in at the newcomer level.
      All the best Dave Reed


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      From: danp888@...
      Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:43:05 +0800
      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] LVT discussion needs input



      I have just translatet from danish to english my attempt to illustrate the
      property crash through a flash movie

      http://www.happiocracy.dk/happiocracy/f.landbubble.html

      suggestions for changes for better understanding most welcome

      thks and b.rgds
      Dan
      Dan Pedersen
    • Walter Horn
      ... Again, such concepts as a higher improvement value fraction will be effectively meaningless in jurisdictions that don t have separate assessments for
      Message 34 of 34 , Dec 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Roy Langston <roy_langston1@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Steven Cord wrote:
        >
        > >Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV)
        >
        > >Give taxpayers an Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV) which
        > >they could use to pay for 20% of the property tax on
        > >their building assessment; pay for these AHVs by
        > >increasing the property tax rate.
        >
        > This idea has some merit because of its similarities to
        > the personal property tax or LVT exemption I have
        > advocated on many occasions, but it would be fairer to
        > make it a flat per capita amount rather than a fraction
        > of a taxpayer's building assessment. Giving bigger
        > exemptions to people in more expensive housing goes
        > against the grain of tax progressivity, to say nothing
        > of the dubious idea of giving the vouchers to owners
        > but not tenants.
        >
        > >Here¢s what will happen:
        >
        > >v Most taxpayers will pay less property tax
        > >(especially the poor) because their 20% AHV building
        > >assessment reduction will exceed their extra payment
        > >due to the higher property-tax rate. Note: all
        > >business & individual tenants will eventually pay
        > >less space rent.
        >
        > Actually, it is difficult to say if the poor would get
        > a bigger break from this scheme than the rich, as the
        > poor tend to be tenants rater than owners and the rich
        > tend to live in newer buildings with a higher improvement
        > value fraction.
        >

        Again, such concepts as "a higher improvement value fraction" will be
        effectively meaningless in jurisdictions that don't have separate
        assessments for land and improvements--and no change to this is being
        contemplated. Where that is the case (nearly everywhere in America,
        as I understand it) Steve's proposal (except for the parts about new
        construction) wouldn't change anybody's taxes, because both the total
        municipal levy and the arbitrary land-to-improvement ratio (whether
        60/40 or whatever) is proposed to be fixed across all property
        owners. Even if the tax on "the improvement portion" were reduced to
        by a 100% rather than a 20% discount, under that proposal, every
        homeowner would pay the same amount as at present.

        I think that for a two-rate tax system to make any sense, you have to
        have actual assessments of the two different portions being taxed.
        Across-the-board imputations won't work.


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