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

rent,utility,Homestead Exemption

Expand Messages
  • David Reed
    Major respect to Harry for spending umpteen hours at Hyde Park Corner putting a case for Land Value Tax, an impressive ,even frightening ,level of commitment !
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Major respect to Harry for spending umpteen hours at Hyde Park Corner putting a case for Land Value Tax, an impressive ,even frightening ,level of commitment !
      His e-mails of yesterday's date give a precise descriptive and not prescriptive account of how things stand at the moment among Georgists, language-wise :
      it is sometimes better to talk about "land values" rather than "rent" with a lay audience;
      "rent" is used mainly by Georgists among themselves;  
      the use of "rent" is a hangover from the days of George and partly an acknowledgment of his influence;
      it is difficult to talk about rent being linked to production with residential land;
      in the past rent for land related to soil fertility and not location value especially in Ricardo's theories.
      Although well-argued ,it is difficult to buy Roy Langston's point ( much as he is also to be respected for his attack on  the Samizdata blog) that land rent is a factor in accommodation.Land does n't provide any accommodation
      as in Shakespeare's remarks about unaccommodated man and all that.
       
      Although George could use "rent" amongst both insiders and the masses,we can't.
       
       If you type in Capitalism and Landlordism on Google ,you will see that they were once used equally, pejoratively, and on a mass scale.The first Labour Party Manifesto of 1900 talks about the emancipation of Labour from the domination of Capitalism and Landlordism-typical of an era when Georgists and others could get people out on the street in Glasgow to protest about rent levels and landlords.Rent was a red rag to the workers that we can't wave now that so many have been bribed into home-ownership (or home-ownerism as it sometimes called in the Uk) in order to serve as electoral cannon fodder to preserve the privileges of the landed rich. In the UK the immediate problem in lobbying for LVT is that MP's are convinced it is a vote loser.


      New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
    • David Reed
      Major respect to Harry for spending umpteen hours at Hyde Park Corner putting a case for Land Value Tax, an impressive ,even frightening ,level of commitment !
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Major respect to Harry for spending umpteen hours at Hyde Park Corner putting a case for Land Value Tax, an impressive ,even frightening ,level of commitment !
        His e-mails of yesterday's date give a precise descriptive and not prescriptive account of how things stand at the moment among Georgists, language-wise :
        it is sometimes better to talk about "land values" rather than "rent" with a lay audience;
        "rent" is used mainly by Georgists among themselves;  
        the use of "rent" is a hangover from the days of George and partly an acknowledgment of his influence;
        it is difficult to talk about rent being linked to production with residential land;
        in the past rent for land related to soil fertility and not location value especially in Ricardo's theories.
        Although well-argued ,it is difficult to buy Roy Langston's point ( much as he is also to be respected for his attack on  the Samizdata blog) that land rent is a factor in accommodation.Land does n't provide any accommodation
        as in Shakespeare's remarks about unaccommodated man and all that.
         
        Although George could use "rent" amongst both insiders and the masses,we can't.
         
         If you type in Capitalism and Landlordism on Google ,you will see that they were once used equally, pejoratively, and on a mass scale.The first Labour Party Manifesto of 1900 talks about the emancipation of Labour from the domination of Capitalism and Landlordism-typical of an era when Georgists and others could get people out on the street in Glasgow to protest about rent levels and landlords.Rent was a red rag to the workers that we can't wave now that so many have been bribed into home-ownership (or home-ownerism as it sometimes called in the Uk) in order to serve as electoral cannon fodder to preserve the privileges of the landed rich. In the UK the immediate problem in lobbying for LVT is that MP's are convinced it is a vote loser.


        New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
      • roy_langston1
        ... Just think of how a hotelier uses land to produce accommodation. It s a little subtler with homeowners who produce their own accommodation, but the basic
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
          <dbcreed@...> wrote:

          > it is difficult to talk about rent being
          > linked to production with residential land;

          Just think of how a hotelier uses land to
          produce accommodation. It's a little subtler
          with homeowners who produce their own
          accommodation, but the basic case is the same.
          IMO it can be very useful to point out that
          being empowered to pocket publicly created land
          rent allows slum landlords to profit while
          adding almost nothing in the way of
          accommodation value to what their locations
          already provide.

          > Although well-argued ,it is difficult to buy
          > Roy Langston's point ( much as he is also to
          > be respected for his attack on the Samizdata
          > blog)

          As you know, I was banned from samizdata for
          identifying the fact that the blog's
          fair-haired boy, Jonathan Pearce, was baldly
          lying about what I had plainly written. Maybe
          you could revive the land tax discussion and
          ask Pearce why he never answered my question,
          the one that apologists for landowner privilege
          can never answer, and will never be able to
          answer: How is production aided by the
          landowners' demand that others pay THEM for
          what government, the community and nature
          provide?

          > that land rent is a factor in accommodation.

          ??? Location, location, location.

          > Land does n't provide any accommodation as in
          > Shakespeare's remarks about unaccommodated man
          > and all that.

          So? Land doesn't provide any bananas or cars or
          dentistry, either. One must USE land to produce
          accommodation, just as one must use it if one
          wants to produce bananas, cars or dental work.

          Do you really think a hotelier, an apartment
          building owner, or a SFD home builder are not
          using land to produce accommodation? Does a
          pioneer who builds his own log cabin not use
          land to produce accommodation for himself?

          > Rent was a red rag to the workers that we
          > can't wave now that so many have been bribed
          > into home-ownership (or home-ownerism as it
          > sometimes called in the Uk) in order to serve
          > as electoral cannon fodder to preserve the
          > privileges of the landed rich.

          A progressive or left-leaning politician who
          wanted to wave that red rag again could easily
          do so: 'The ordinary homeowner has little
          understanding of economics, and is easily
          fooled into thinking he benefits by the system
          that subsidizes idle landowning at the expense
          of working people. He is robbed of nearly half
          his wages by unfair taxation of both his labor
          and his consumption, and then when he is given
          back a quarter of it for being a landowner, he
          bends his knee and tugs his forelock, and says,
          "Thank 'ee, guvnor, thank 'ee." Of course, the
          tenant gets nothing back at all, as he must pay
          his landlord full market value for access to
          every benefit his taxes go to provide.'

          But IME politicians of the left don't want to
          touch that red rag.

          > In the UK the immediate problem in lobbying
          > for LVT is that MP's are convinced it is a
          > vote loser.

          As it certainly is, in the absence of a flat,
          universal, personal land tax exemption. How
          much of a vote loser would income tax be
          without the universal personal exemption?
          How much of a vote loser would a citizens'
          dividend funded by increased income taxation
          be? Hello? But provide an equal exemption
          guaranteed to reduce total taxes for 90% of
          them, and watch them charge that red rag.

          -- Roy Langston
        • Scott Bergeson
          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: rent,utility,Homestead Exemption Quoting roy_langston1 on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:35:10 -0000: ___David Reed___ In the UK the immediate
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: rent,utility,Homestead Exemption

            Quoting roy_langston1 on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:35:10 -0000:

            ___David Reed___
            In the UK the immediate problem in lobbying
            for LVT is that MP's are convinced it is a
            vote loser.

            ___Riy___
            How much of a vote loser would a citizens'
            dividend funded by increased income taxation be?
            -----

            (Subjunctive mood) Rhetorical? 1972

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