Re: [LandCafe] LVT discussion needs input
- Thks a lot David
Corrections made and up-loaded
>I just get "movie not loaded"?I will e-mail you a copy of the actual movie file
From: David Reed <dbcreed@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] LVT discussion needs input
To: land cafe <email@example.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
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
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
suggestions for changes for better understanding most welcome
thks and b.rgds
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Roy Langston <roy_langston1@...>
>Again, such concepts as "a higher improvement value fraction" will be
> 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.
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.