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

Re: Homestead Exemption and CD

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston1
    ... Sorry, I hate it when people get my name wrong, too. What, they can t hear the difference between Roy and Ray ? ... Correct. Having their liberty
    Message 1 of 29 , Nov 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:

      > Please correct your spell checker's dictionary.
      > My surname has an 's', and only a single 'r'.

      Sorry, I hate it when people get my name wrong, too.
      What, they can't hear the difference between "Roy"
      and "Ray"?

      > ___Roy___
      > As the exemption applies to persons, not land,
      > and is equal for all resident citizens and
      > equally applicable to all land, it cannot
      > be capitalized as land value.
      > -----
      >
      > It would, however, increase demand for land,

      Correct. Having their liberty rights to use land
      restored to them would empower people who currently
      cannot afford to use all the land they would like
      to use to use more and/or better land. They would
      no longer have to endure their current overcrowded
      and disadvantageous locations.

      > and increase its supply only via a very intrusive
      > and continual census.

      Nonsense. The supply of land is fixed, so it's
      only release of hoarded land for productive use that
      would increase. And of course, no "very intrusive
      and continual census" would be required: people
      would just notify the land tax office when they moved,
      same as they do now for their driver's licenses, voter
      registration, etc. How would the government deliver a
      CD check to each individual without knowing where they
      lived, hmmm? How would it ensure people without bank
      accounts would not be ripped off by check cashing
      companies?

      > Its main effect otherwise (besides
      > the Census, Housing and Urban Development full
      > employment and ubiquitous perjury aspects)

      <sigh> Does the universal personal income tax
      exemption have any such effects?

      > would be an increase in the fiat money supply.

      As the current monetary system is not a fiat money
      system, I assume you are assuming monetary reform as
      well. Now you just have to explain how the exemption
      would require greater expansion of the fiat money
      supply than a CD.

      > (I presume
      > those exemptions would have to be tendered on land
      > rent within a year of issuance or be forfeited?)

      It would probably be tracked by the month, as that is
      how people tend to pay their rent, property tax
      installments, utility bills, etc.

      > Why do you wish to give *residents* a rental
      > exemption, anyhow?

      They are the ones whose rights to use the local land
      are being violated without just compensation.
      Non-residents are in no position to use the land.

      > A "resident" is a carpetbagger,
      > an office, and someone because not domiciled
      > according to the federales, has no actual right
      > to inhabit.

      I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

      > ___Roy___
      > Obviously, to the extent that rent is left to
      > landowners, it will be capitalized as land value.
      > That is not affected by the exemption, though.
      > ----
      >
      > It increases the flow of funds available to service
      > mortgage debt. (Indirectly, by saving legal tender
      > of unlimited applicability from being needed to pay
      > land rental/tax.)

      So would a CD. So do economic growth and prosperity.
      So what? Land rent recovery abolishes mortgages
      anyway, by eliminating their economic rationale.

      > ___Roy___
      > owners of vacant land will have to let people use it,
      > which will relieve the shortage of sites caused by
      > speculative hoarding of vacant land, and thus reduce
      > aggregate rents and land value. David and Scott
      > seem not to have understood the full implications
      > of this effect of the personal land tax exemption
      > in encouraging those who hold vacant and under-used
      > land to allow its use in order to get the exemption.
      > -----
      >
      > No, it would encourage lying and continual census
      > and code enforcement.

      Nonsense lacking any basis in fact.

      > This is the police.

      This is more nonsense.

      > It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your tenants are?

      I always know I must be right when the opposition must
      resort to such silliness.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Dan Sullivan
      ... As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for all resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be capitalized as land
      Message 2 of 29 , Nov 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8 Nov 2009 at 20:08, roy_langston1 wrote:

        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

        > > Thus, your statement that each person would get
        > > exactly the same benefit is clearly false.
        >
        > Of course, you will now be providing a direct,
        > verbatim, in-context quote where I made that
        > statement.

        "As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for all resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be capitalized as land value." 

        - Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:56:02 +0000

        By the way, since it is *not* equal for all citizens, but only for those who use enough land to qualify for the full amount, it does indeed increase the demand for land, and is capitalized to that degree as land value.


        > Or will you?  You know the alternative.  I do
        > hope you will not be following Harry's
        > unfortunate example.

        Harry's unfortunate example is not realizing that endlessly quibbling with you is a waste of time.

        > I'm waiting.

        No, you are not. You included this adolescent remark in the same letter in which you first asked for the quote.

        Meanwhile, I *am* waiting for you to explain why your exemption idea is not any more complicated than a per capita CD, and I have been waiting several months.

        > > and that, by logical extension, people who do not
        > > buy or rent enough land should get less.
        >
        > The exemption is compensation for violation of
        > rights: i.e., deprivation of what people would
        > otherwise have had.  If some would not otherwise
        > avail themselves of more valuable land, what's to
        > compensate them for?

        That's the stupidest comment since "Why don't they eat cake?" It is the people who have land who needn't be compensated, not the people who have no land. Clearly, the people with are less deprived than the people without, but you would compensate them only if they had land, and compensate them substantially only if they had a lot of land.

        > > You also never spelled out the mechanism by which
        > > the bureaucracy would determine who is owning,
        > > renting, and subletting what land, and how this
        > > would all be sorted out for the purpose of
        > > determining exemptions.

        Note, you still haven't spelled out the mechanism.

        > ??  It should be obvious that the "bureaucracy"
        > knows who holds the land, because they are the ones
        > making the tax payments.

        No, they only know who the land "owners" are. You were going to grant exemptions to the renters as well, and each renter would have to show how much land he was renting in order to qualify for his share of the exemption, as your nebulously concocted proposal vaguely implies. The government has zero data on that.

        > With few exceptions, and only initiated by the persons in question, the
        > exemptions would apply to each person's residential address. 

        Again, the government would have to know the names of each person at that address, and the value of each address. Given that there can be many addresses at a single parcel, how do you determine how much of the parcel each person rents? Would the person in a tiny cubicle of an apartment building get the same rebate as the person living in the penthouse suite? How is that fair if, at the same time, you insist that a person renting less land should get less of a rebate?


        > By what nefarious bureaucratic mechanism do you
        > imagine CDs would be delivered to the correct
        > addresses, hmmm?

        Must you be so intentionally dense as to suppose that this is a question about delivering benefits to the right address? It is about calculating them, Roy. A per capita CD is simple to calculate. You just take the total rent dedicated to dividends and divide it by the number of people, each person getting the same amount. In your scheme, which you say is just as simple, each person's exemption must be individually calculated.

        > Do you really imagine that when Alberta and Alaska deliver their oil
        > royalty dividend checks, they don't use people's residential addresses
        > of record?

        My, when you get intentionally dense you do go on so! Consider, though, that your proposal would not be like giving each Alaskan or Albertan an equal check, but like giving each one free oil and gasoline up to the median amount used. This would, of course, drive up consumption of oil and gas, just as your scheme would drive up consumption of land.

        > > After all, it is only the landlord who pays the
        > > land tax, and there is no public record of who
        > > rents from whom.

        > There is an official record of who lives where,

        Actually, there isn't. There is only a record of who receives mail where. That record has no social security numbers or other unique identifiers to it, and, in many cases, no first names, especially for children. Also, people can get mail at multiple addresses, and, conversely, can own or rent land where they do not get mail.

        > and the landlord would be paying part or all of his land tax using his
        > tenants' exemption forms, addressed to their residences.

        More complexity.

        > > You did stridently insist that the exemption was
        > > not more complicated than a dividend, but I don't
        > > see it.
        >
        > It's only more complicated for some people to
        > understand, not for government to administer.

        Actually, the only person who clearly does not understand is you, which is why you suppose mailing addresses equal land tenure, exemptions contingent on land use does not drive up the demand for land, and only people who have no land are deprived of land.

        > See above.  The same kind of system complexities that would be needed to
        > prevent dividend fraud would suffice to prevent exemption fraud.

        (yawn)

        > > The only tracking necessary for calculating
        > > dividends is a simple census of who was living
        > > in the country during the dividend year.
        >
        > Oh?  Then how are the dividends actually delivered
        > to each individual recipient?

        Look up the word "calculating."

        > How does the massive dividend bureaucracy determine who is authorized
        > to receive/administer the dividends for children and legally incompetent
        > adults?

        It has already done so.

        > Do prison inmates get dividends?

        I would think so.

        > What would they be compensated for, as they are not at liberty to use
        > land anyway?

        Again, you are venting out of ignorance. People in jail who have land *do* get the benefit of that land, even in jail, by renting it to others or hiring people to make it profitable for them. People in jail who have no land are prevented from this opportunity because they have no land, not because they are in jail. You are not so stupid that you could not have figured this out, but your desire to win arguments consistently trumps your desire to think with an open mind.

        > > Even if we tabulated the use of passports to come
        > > up with fractional payments to international
        > > travellers, how could this possibly be as
        > > complicated as what would be necessary for your
        > > exemption scheme?
        >
        > I see no particular need for complication.  You do
        > seem to need to see a need for complication.

        It is not a *need* for complication that you are offering us. It is complication itself. It is a tangled web you weave as you practice to win arguments rather than make sense. Mostly, you deceive yourself.

        -ds
         
      • Scott Bergeson
        Quoting roy_langston1 (Roy Langston) on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:01:40 -0000: ___Scott___ increase its supply only via a very intrusive and continual census.
        Message 3 of 29 , Nov 8, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Quoting roy_langston1 (Roy Langston) on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:01:40 -0000:

          ___Scott___
          increase its supply only via a very intrusive and continual census.

          ___Roy___
          Nonsense. The supply of land is fixed,
          -----

          You like to quibble. The potential, earth-surface supply of land is fixed.

          ___Roy___
          so it's only release of hoarded land for productive use that would increase.
          -----

          That was the point.

          ___Roy___
          And of course, no "very intrusive and continual census"
          would be required: people would just notify the land
          tax office when they moved, same as they do now for
          their driver's licenses, voter registration, etc.
          How would the government deliver a CD check to each
          individual without knowing where they lived, hmmm?
          -----

          By getting mail. Presuming outright maildrops (such
          as PO Boxes) not be allowed for distribution of CDs
          or exemptions, how will it know whether a tenant of
          a holder of 100 square miles of prime bottom land
          (or an entire downtown if you prefer urban examples)
          use the entirety, or just enough for a mailbox? And
          if the tenant skips out for unregistered Andean
          mountaineering, he may not get any checks from Peru
          or neighbouring countries, but will be presumed
          to still be using whatever portion of that bottom
          or downtown land he's registered as using. You going
          to send so the recipient must sign for each check?
          You still won't know whether he's using what he
          claimed, or timed his return from Peru to meet
          the mailman or traipse to the post office.

          ___Roy___
          How would it ensure people without bank accounts
          would not be ripped off by check cashing companies?
          -----

          Does this concern CDs or exemptions? If former, why
          can't the post office cash them? And if latter, post
          or assessor's office may need to break them up for
          people using^H claiming to use several small parcels.

          ___Roy___
          <sigh> Does the universal personal income
          tax exemption have any such effects?
          -----

          The penalties of perjury clause and demands for
          marriage and birth certificates (Does "Barack Obama" get
          a personal exemption?) may deter them, but it happens.
          And it's only "universal" for federal employees.
          (Just try getting it without a Social Security number.)

          ___Roy___
          As the current monetary system is not a fiat money system,
          -----

          More quibbling. Fiat credit system, if you prefer.

          ___Roy___
          I assume you are assuming monetary reform as well.
          -----

          That would be Stephen Zarlenga and chelas.

          ___Roy___
          Now you just have to explain how the exemption would require
          greater expansion of the fiat money supply than a CD.
          -----

          CD needn't do any such thing. (Sorry, Stephen and Dan.
          Just don't issue rent anticipation CDs.) Exemption
          is a money substitute for specific uses. They quit
          printing food stamps, and required use of debit cards
          instead, to reduce unauthorized distribution. Likewise
          with ration books and cards replacing stamps. I
          fear I may be giving you ideas about how to enlist
          landlords (tax payers) as tenant and land use snitches.

          ___Roy___
          It would probably be tracked by the month,
          as that is how people tend to pay their rent,
          property tax installments, utility bills, etc.
          -----

          In all the several United States I know of,
          property taxes are billed annually. But darn; that
          holds those secret Peruvian trips to a single month!
          (Unless a proxy can receive, sign and tender them.)
          Will the mailman bring them to jails, hospitals,
          summer camps, foreign deployments, etc.?

          ___Scott___
          Why do you wish to give *residents* a rental exemption, anyhow?

          ___Roy___
          They are the ones whose rights to use the local
          land are being violated without just compensation.
          -----

          They have no such right, any more than do foreign tourists.

          ___Roy___
          Non-residents are in no position to use the land.
          -----

          Then those tourists are "residents" while they stay?
          Why can't domiciled inhabitants use land?

          ___Scott___
          A "resident" is a carpetbagger, an office,
          and someone because not domiciled according
          to the federales, has no actual right to inhabit.

          ___Roy___
          I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
          -----

          Their citizenship and domicile is in D.C.
          That would be somewhat crowded with 300 million
          inhabitants, and would leave no one to make
          exactions in the several States, so they "reside"
          in those States while ripping them off; to an
          even greater extent if they get tax exemptions.

          resident

          ?noun
          a diplomatic representative, inferior in rank
          to an ambassador, residing at a foreign court.

          ?adjective
          living or staying at a place in discharge of duty.

          reside

          -intr.v.

          To be vested, as a power or right

          [Middle English residen, from Old French resider,
          from Latin residere, to remain behind...]

          ___Scott___
          [Rent exemption] increases the flow of funds
          available to service mortgage debt. (Indirectly,
          by saving legal tender of unlimited applicability
          from being needed to pay land rental/tax.)

          ___Roy___
          So would a CD.
          -----

          Only if issued in anticipation of rent proceeds.
          So stop the tax farming, already!

          ___Roy___
          So do economic growth and prosperity.
          -----

          Only if in the form of specie mining and mintage (or
          brick-making and deposit, or wheat growing and storage,
          etc.). Otherwise, this reduces prices and per capita
          (perhaps not total) rent. What, you think that will
          occur fast enough to necessitate monthly rent repricing?

          ___Roy___
          So what? Land rent recovery abolishes mortgages
          anyway, by eliminating their economic rationale.
          -----

          More quibbling. I addressed this under the premise
          of far less than total rent recovery. Their
          rationale only disappears near full recovery, and
          they may still exist on improvements. (Perhaps also
          requiring insurance against changes in rent making
          said improvements prematurely inappropriate.)
          And if financial and legal system remains as
          crass as it has been there will also be personal
          loans (mortgaged wages and productive lives).

          ___Roy___
          Nonsense lacking any basis in fact.
          -----

          How does assessor or mailman know how much and
          one actually uses, and how? You going to ban
          bearer money and unreported transfers of goods
          so land owners can't buy non-tenants' exemptions?

          ___Scott___
          This is the police.
          It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your tenants are?

          ___Roy___
          This is more nonsense.

          I always know I must be right when the
          opposition must resort to such silliness.
          -----

          Did only KSL radio and television run those "public
          service" announcements that said "It's 10 o'clock.
          Do you know where your children (later "parents") are?"?

          Will you deliver those exemption checks after 10 pm?
          (Where people sleep is a fairly good indicator where
          they live or reside. Waking them up to get their
          checks every month may not enhance exemption's appeal.
          Great, now exemption also requires reporting one's
          sleep schedule.)

          Scott
        • roy_langston1
          ... As discerning readers will note, the above quote does not say what you claim it says. It does not say that each person would get exactly the same benefit.
          Message 4 of 29 , Nov 9, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

            > On 8 Nov 2009 at 20:08, roy_langston1 wrote:
            >
            > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@> wrote:
            >
            > > > Thus, your statement that each person would get
            > > > exactly the same benefit is clearly false.
            > >
            > > Of course, you will now be providing a direct,
            > > verbatim, in-context quote where I made that
            > > statement.
            >
            > "As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for all
            > resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be
            > capitalized as land value."
            >
            > - Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:56:02 +0000

            As discerning readers will note, the above quote does
            not say what you claim it says. It does not say
            that each person would get exactly the same benefit.
            It says that the exemption is equal for all resident
            citizens. Having an equal exemption is not the same
            as getting equal benefit, as the unequal benefits
            conferred by the equal individual income tax
            exemption prove. There are many other examples, such
            as seniors all being equally exempt from admission
            fees at certain attractions, or on public transit. It
            should be self-evident that not all seniors who have
            such equal exemptions benefit equally from them.

            So as I knew would be the case, you have followed
            Harry's unfortunate example: you have not provided
            a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support your
            claim about what I said, nor will you ever be doing
            so.

            > By the way, since it is *not* equal for all
            > citizens, but only for those who use enough land
            > to qualify for the full amount, it does indeed
            > increase the demand for land, and is capitalized to
            > that degree as land value.

            No. Increased demand for land does not result in
            capitalization as land value except to the extent that
            it increases the rent the landowner can pocket. As
            landowners would have to compete for tenants to get
            their exemptions, making more land available for use,
            there is no reason to expect that amount to increase.

            > > I'm waiting.
            >
            > No, you are not.

            Yes, I most certainly am. Don't be ridiculous. You
            have not provided any quote to support your claim,
            nor will you ever be doing so. Readers are invited
            to verify this fact for themselves.

            > You included this adolescent remark in the same
            > letter in which you first asked for the quote.

            And I am still waiting.

            > Meanwhile, I *am* waiting for you to explain why
            > your exemption idea is not any more complicated
            > than a per capita CD, and I have been waiting
            > several months.

            Try reading the messages to which you are putatively
            responding. The exemption and CD are complicated in
            slightly different ways. The exemption only applies
            to citizens living in the jurisdiction, whereas a CD
            might go to a citizen living outside it, or a visitor
            living in it. That's more complicated for the CD.
            The exemption requires recipients to tell the land
            tax office which land they are living on or using.
            That's more complicated for the exemption.

            Neither has any substantial degree of complexity that
            could affect which is preferable.

            > > > and that, by logical extension, people who do not
            > > > buy or rent enough land should get less.
            > >
            > > The exemption is compensation for violation of
            > > rights: i.e., deprivation of what people would
            > > otherwise have had. If some would not otherwise
            > > avail themselves of more valuable land, what's to
            > > compensate them for?
            >
            > That's the stupidest comment since "Why don't they
            > eat cake?" It is the people who have land who needn't
            > be compensated, not the people who have no land.

            No, that's false. Even people who have land are being
            deprived of access to all the land they don't have.
            In some cases, having exclusive access to "their" land
            may be sufficient compensation for that, in other cases
            not.

            > Clearly, the people with are less deprived than the
            > people without, but you would compensate them only if
            > they had land,

            No, that is another false claim on your part. All
            would be compensated with secure tenure on the land
            they wanted to use, up to a modest per capita value.

            > and compensate them substantially only if they had a
            > lot of land.

            No, that is also false. The maximum compensation would
            be modest, and would thus be exhausted by use of a
            modest value of land.

            > > > You also never spelled out the mechanism by which
            > > > the bureaucracy would determine who is owning,
            > > > renting, and subletting what land, and how this
            > > > would all be sorted out for the purpose of
            > > > determining exemptions.
            >
            > Note, you still haven't spelled out the mechanism.

            No, that is also false. I have described it in
            sufficient detail for understanding by those who do
            not actively prevent themselves from understanding.

            > > ?? It should be obvious that the "bureaucracy"
            > > knows who holds the land, because they are the ones
            > > making the tax payments.
            >
            > No, they only know who the land "owners" are.

            The landholder is what you call the "owner": the person
            or firm that has tenure and is directly responsible for
            remitting the tax in return.

            > You were going to grant exemptions to the renters as
            > well, and each renter would have to show how much
            > land he was renting in order to qualify for his share

            No, that is also false. Tenants would simply authorize
            their landlords to use their exemptions, which would be
            applied against the land tax up to the full amount.
            The landholder would then make up any shortfall out of
            his own resources. There would be no refund if the
            exemptions tendered for a given parcel exceeded the land
            tax on it.

            > of the exemption, as your nebulously concocted
            > proposal vaguely implies. The government has zero data
            > on that.

            If the government doesn't know where people live, how can
            it know if they qualify for a CD, or to vote in local
            elections?

            > > With few exceptions, and only initiated by the
            > > persons in question, the exemptions would apply to
            > > each person's residential address.
            >
            > Again, the government would have to know the names of
            > each person at that address,

            No, only of those who chose to apply their exemptions at
            that address.

            > and the value of each address. Given that there can be
            > many addresses at a single parcel, how do you
            > determine how much of the parcel each person rents?

            It's not necessary to. Each exemption just reduces the
            tax owing on that land parcel by the full exempt amount.

            > Would the person in a tiny cubicle of an apartment
            > building get the same rebate as the person living in
            > the penthouse suite?

            Exemption, not rebate. Yes. The penthouse dweller
            would just pay more rent on top of his exemption.

            > How is that fair if, at the same time, you insist that
            > a person renting less land should get less of a rebate?

            It's not a rebate. Those using less than the exempt
            value of land would just not pay any land tax.

            > > By what nefarious bureaucratic mechanism do you
            > > imagine CDs would be delivered to the correct
            > > addresses, hmmm?
            >
            > Must you be so intentionally dense as to suppose that
            > this is a question about delivering benefits to the
            > right address? It is about calculating them, Roy.

            Must you choose to be so deliberately obtuse and
            bone-headed as to suppose that a uniform, universal
            exemption must be calculated individually?

            > A per capita CD is simple to calculate. You just take
            > the total rent dedicated to dividends and divide it
            > by the number of people, each person getting the same
            > amount.

            Same with the exemption.

            > In your scheme, which you say is just as simple,
            > each person's exemption must be individually calculated.

            No, the same amount is taken off the land tax bill for
            everyone; it just won't reduce it to less than zero.

            > > Do you really imagine that when Alberta and Alaska
            > > deliver their oil royalty dividend checks, they don't
            > > use people's residential addresses of record?
            >
            > My, when you get intentionally dense you do go on so!
            > Consider, though, that your proposal would not be like
            > giving each Alaskan or Albertan an equal check, but
            > like giving each one free oil and gasoline up to the
            > median amount used. This would, of course, drive up
            > consumption of oil and gas, just as your scheme would
            > drive up consumption of land.

            My, when you choose to be obstinate rather than honest,
            you do go on so!

            Land cannot be consumed. What the exemptions would do
            is bring more land into use, relieving the overcrowding
            and consignment to disdvantageous locations (and
            consequent lack of economic opportunity) that the
            poor and unproductive currently suffer, and would
            continue to suffer under land rent recovery if their
            individual land use rights were not restored to them via
            a personal exemption. A CD is no solution, as many of
            the poor will lose or squander their CD cash, have it
            stolen or conned or extorted from them, etc., and
            consequently be deprived of land after all.

            > > > After all, it is only the landlord who pays the
            > > > land tax, and there is no public record of who
            > > > rents from whom.
            >
            > > There is an official record of who lives where,
            >
            > Actually, there isn't.

            Actually, there is, except for the homeless.

            > There is only a record of who receives mail where.
            > That record has no social security numbers or other
            > unique identifiers to it, and, in many cases, no
            > first names, especially for children. Also, people
            > can get mail at multiple addresses, and, conversely,
            > can own or rent land where they do not get mail.

            But they are actually domiciled at a particular
            location, of which there is almost always an official
            record for legal purposes such as construction of
            voters' lists.

            > > and the landlord would be paying part or all of
            > > his land tax using his tenants' exemption forms,
            > > addressed to their residences.
            >
            > More complexity.

            My, you do go on so when you fabricate silly claims!

            What is so complicated about making out a one-page form?

            > > > You did stridently insist that the exemption was
            > > > not more complicated than a dividend, but I don't
            > > > see it.
            > >
            > > It's only more complicated for some people to
            > > understand, not for government to administer.
            >
            > Actually, the only person who clearly does not
            > understand is you,

            See above, where I have corrected your erroneous claims
            about what I have plainly written, such as your bizarre
            claim that an exemption that is the same for everyone
            would have to be calculated individually.

            > which is why you suppose mailing
            > addresses equal land tenure,

            I have said no such thing. You know this.

            > exemptions contingent on land use does not drive up
            > the demand for land,

            I have said no such thing. You know this, too.

            > and only people who have no land are deprived of land.

            ??? That's what YOU said, sunshine, not me, and I
            corrected your error. Remember? Look up to just below
            your absurd "Let them eat cake" comment.

            > > > The only tracking necessary for calculating
            > > > dividends is a simple census of who was living
            > > > in the country during the dividend year.
            > >
            > > Oh? Then how are the dividends actually delivered
            > > to each individual recipient?
            >
            > Look up the word "calculating."

            Look up the word, "uniform."

            > > How does the massive dividend bureaucracy
            > > determine who is authorized to receive/administer
            > > the dividends for children and legally incompetent
            > > adults?
            >
            > It has already done so.

            Oh? When did it do that? Round about the same time it
            figured out where people live?

            > > Do prison inmates get dividends?
            >
            > I would think so.

            Try selling that at the polls.

            > > What would they be compensated for, as they are
            > > not at liberty to use land anyway?
            >
            > Again, you are venting out of ignorance.

            Kindly do not practise your dishonesty and
            relentlessly insulting demeanor on me.

            > People in jail who have land *do* get the benefit
            > of that land, even in jail, by renting it to others
            > or hiring people to make it profitable for them.

            ??? Talk about venting out of ignorance! Landholders
            pocketing rent while doing nothing is exactly the kind
            of thing we are trying to stop! _Hello?_

            > People in jail who have no land are prevented from
            > this opportunity because they have no land, not
            > because they are in jail.

            ??? "Opportunity?" You are even adoping the anti-LVT
            rhetoric of calling landowner privilege just another
            "opportunity"??!?

            It is precisely OPPORTUNITY that landowners deprive
            others of, whether those landowners are living in a
            big house or _the_ Big House.

            ROTFL! Stick a fork in yourself, Dan. You're done.

            > You are not so stupid that you could not
            > have figured this out, but your desire to win
            > arguments consistently
            > trumps your desire to think with an open mind.

            As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

            -- Roy Langston
          • Harry Pollard
            In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com , Dan ... RL: Of course, you will now be providing a direct, ... DS: As the exemption applies
            Message 5 of 29 , Nov 9, 2009
            • 0 Attachment

              In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@> wrote:

              >
              > > > Thus, your statement that each person would get
              > > > exactly the same benefit is clearly false.

              RL: Of course, you will now be providing a direct,
              > > verbatim, in-context quote where I made that
              > > statement.
              >
              DS: "As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for all resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be
              capitalized as land value."

              - Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:56:02 +0000

              RL: As discerning readers will note, the above quote does
              not say what you claim it says.

               

              Roy, this gets silly. If the exemption is a benefit to each person who receives it and “is equal for all resident citizens” then presumably each person gets an equal benefit. That any individual may not want to use the benefit, or might lose it in a card game, or whatever, is beside the point.

               

              There again, if it’s not a benefit why would they want it? In any event, it seems pretty nonsensical. If the full Rent is being collected then no-one gets any Rent from his land. So, if you have several acres of Manhattan and I have a suburban home and we both pay the full Rent our use of community resources is the same.

               

              You spend a lot of space on landlords and tenants, yet if the Rent is fully collected, there is little point in being a landlord. You get nothing back from the land – the community gets the Rent.

               

              Indeed, your arguments seem to view things in a Georgist society as being pretty much as they are today. You appear to have no idea of the economic consequences of collecting full Rent.

               

              As I’ve said, in earlier E-Mails you contradicted yourself – plainly – a consequence I would say of your faulty understanding. I actually put together evidence of this, then decided not to use it. It would only involve endless quibbling about this or that word, rather as your refusal above to recognize what you had written to Dan and accept it as a mistake.

               

              Harry

               

              ******************************

              Henry George School of Los Angeles

              Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91043

              Tel: 818 352-4141

              ******************************

               

              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
              Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:44 PM
              To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Homestead Exemption and CD

               

               

              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

              > On 8 Nov 2009 at 20:08, roy_langston1 wrote:
              >
              > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com,
              "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@> wrote:
              >
              > > > Thus, your statement that each person would get
              > > > exactly the same benefit is clearly false.
              > >
              > > Of course, you will now be providing a direct,
              > > verbatim, in-context quote where I made that
              > > statement.
              >
              > "As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for all
              > resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be
              > capitalized as land value."
              >
              > - Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:56:02 +0000

              As discerning readers will note, the above quote does
              not say what you claim it says. It does not say
              that each person would get exactly the same benefit.
              It says that the exemption is equal for all resident
              citizens. Having an equal exemption is not the same
              as getting equal benefit, as the unequal benefits
              conferred by the equal individual income tax
              exemption prove. There are many other examples, such
              as seniors all being equally exempt from admission
              fees at certain attractions, or on public transit. It
              should be self-evident that not all seniors who have
              such equal exemptions benefit equally from them.

              So as I knew would be the case, you have followed
              Harry's unfortunate example: you have not provided
              a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support your
              claim about what I said, nor will you ever be doing
              so.

              > By the way, since it is *not* equal for all
              > citizens, but only for those who use enough land
              > to qualify for the full amount, it does indeed
              > increase the demand for land, and is capitalized to
              > that degree as land value.

              No. Increased demand for land does not result in
              capitalization as land value except to the extent that
              it increases the rent the landowner can pocket. As
              landowners would have to compete for tenants to get
              their exemptions, making more land available for use,
              there is no reason to expect that amount to increase.

              > > I'm waiting.
              >
              > No, you are not.

              Yes, I most certainly am. Don't be ridiculous. You
              have not provided any quote to support your claim,
              nor will you ever be doing so. Readers are invited
              to verify this fact for themselves.

              > You included this adolescent remark in the same
              > letter in which you first asked for the quote.

              And I am still waiting.

              > Meanwhile, I *am* waiting for you to explain why
              > your exemption idea is not any more complicated
              > than a per capita CD, and I have been waiting
              > several months.

              Try reading the messages to which you are putatively
              responding. The exemption and CD are complicated in
              slightly different ways. The exemption only applies
              to citizens living in the jurisdiction, whereas a CD
              might go to a citizen living outside it, or a visitor
              living in it. That's more complicated for the CD.
              The exemption requires recipients to tell the land
              tax office which land they are living on or using.
              That's more complicated for the exemption.

              Neither has any substantial degree of complexity that
              could affect which is preferable.

              > > > and that, by logical extension, people who do not
              > > > buy or rent enough land should get less.
              > >
              > > The exemption is compensation for violation of
              > > rights: i.e., deprivation of what people would
              > > otherwise have had. If some would not otherwise
              > > avail themselves of more valuable land, what's to
              > > compensate them for?
              >
              > That's the stupidest comment since "Why don't they
              > eat cake?" It is the people who have land who needn't
              > be compensated, not the people who have no land.

              No, that's false. Even people who have land are being
              deprived of access to all the land they don't have.
              In some cases, having exclusive access to "their" land
              may be sufficient compensation for that, in other cases
              not.

              > Clearly, the people with are less deprived than the
              > people without, but you would compensate them only if
              > they had land,

              No, that is another false claim on your part. All
              would be compensated with secure tenure on the land
              they wanted to use, up to a modest per capita value.

              > and compensate them substantially only if they had a
              > lot of land.

              No, that is also false. The maximum compensation would
              be modest, and would thus be exhausted by use of a
              modest value of land.

              > > > You also never spelled out the mechanism by which
              > > > the bureaucracy would determine who is owning,
              > > > renting, and subletting what land, and how this
              > > > would all be sorted out for the purpose of
              > > > determining exemptions.
              >
              > Note, you still haven't spelled out the mechanism.

              No, that is also false. I have described it in
              sufficient detail for understanding by those who do
              not actively prevent themselves from understanding.

              > > ?? It should be obvious that the "bureaucracy"
              > > knows who holds the land, because they are the ones
              > > making the tax payments.
              >
              > No, they only know who the land "owners" are.

              The landholder is what you call the "owner": the person
              or firm that has tenure and is directly responsible for
              remitting the tax in return.

              > You were going to grant exemptions to the renters as
              > well, and each renter would have to show how much
              > land he was renting in order to qualify for his share

              No, that is also false. Tenants would simply authorize
              their landlords to use their exemptions, which would be
              applied against the land tax up to the full amount.
              The landholder would then make up any shortfall out of
              his own resources. There would be no refund if the
              exemptions tendered for a given parcel exceeded the land
              tax on it.

              > of the exemption, as your nebulously concocted
              > proposal vaguely implies. The government has zero data
              > on that.

              If the government doesn't know where people live, how can
              it know if they qualify for a CD, or to vote in local
              elections?

              > > With few exceptions, and only initiated by the
              > > persons in question, the exemptions would apply to
              > > each person's residential address.
              >
              > Again, the government would have to know the names of
              > each person at that address,

              No, only of those who chose to apply their exemptions at
              that address.

              > and the value of each address. Given that there can be
              > many addresses at a single parcel, how do you
              > determine how much of the parcel each person rents?

              It's not necessary to. Each exemption just reduces the
              tax owing on that land parcel by the full exempt amount.

              > Would the person in a tiny cubicle of an apartment
              > building get the same rebate as the person living in
              > the penthouse suite?

              Exemption, not rebate. Yes. The penthouse dweller
              would just pay more rent on top of his exemption.

              > How is that fair if, at the same time, you insist that
              > a person renting less land should get less of a rebate?

              It's not a rebate. Those using less than the exempt
              value of land would just not pay any land tax.

              > > By what nefarious bureaucratic mechanism do you
              > > imagine CDs would be delivered to the correct
              > > addresses, hmmm?
              >
              > Must you be so intentionally dense as to suppose that
              > this is a question about delivering benefits to the
              > right address? It is about calculating them, Roy.

              Must you choose to be so deliberately obtuse and
              bone-headed as to suppose that a uniform, universal
              exemption must be calculated individually?

              > A per capita CD is simple to calculate. You just take
              > the total rent dedicated to dividends and divide it
              > by the number of people, each person getting the same
              > amount.

              Same with the exemption.

              > In your scheme, which you say is just as simple,
              > each person's exemption must be individually calculated.

              No, the same amount is taken off the land tax bill for
              everyone; it just won't reduce it to less than zero.

              > > Do you really imagine that when Alberta and Alaska
              > > deliver their oil royalty dividend checks, they don't
              > > use people's residential addresses of record?
              >
              > My, when you get intentionally dense you do go on so!
              > Consider, though, that your proposal would not be like
              > giving each Alaskan or Albertan an equal check, but
              > like giving each one free oil and gasoline up to the
              > median amount used. This would, of course, drive up
              > consumption of oil and gas, just as your scheme would
              > drive up consumption of land.

              My, when you choose to be obstinate rather than honest,
              you do go on so!

              Land cannot be consumed. What the exemptions would do
              is bring more land into use, relieving the overcrowding
              and consignment to disdvantageous locations (and
              consequent lack of economic opportunity) that the
              poor and unproductive currently suffer, and would
              continue to suffer under land rent recovery if their
              individual land use rights were not restored to them via
              a personal exemption. A CD is no solution, as many of
              the poor will lose or squander their CD cash, have it
              stolen or conned or extorted from them, etc., and
              consequently be deprived of land after all.

              > > > After all, it is only the landlord who pays the
              > > > land tax, and there is no public record of who
              > > > rents from whom.
              >
              > > There is an official record of who lives where,
              >
              > Actually, there isn't.

              Actually, there is, except for the homeless.

              > There is only a record of who receives mail where.
              > That record has no social security numbers or other
              > unique identifiers to it, and, in many cases, no
              > first names, especially for children. Also, people
              > can get mail at multiple addresses, and, conversely,
              > can own or rent land where they do not get mail.

              But they are actually domiciled at a particular
              location, of which there is almost always an official
              record for legal purposes such as construction of
              voters' lists.

              > > and the landlord would be paying part or all of
              > > his land tax using his tenants' exemption forms,
              > > addressed to their residences.
              >
              > More complexity.

              My, you do go on so when you fabricate silly claims!

              What is so complicated about making out a one-page form?

              > > > You did stridently insist that the exemption was
              > > > not more complicated than a dividend, but I don't
              > > > see it.
              > >
              > > It's only more complicated for some people to
              > > understand, not for government to administer.
              >
              > Actually, the only person who clearly does not
              > understand is you,

              See above, where I have corrected your erroneous claims
              about what I have plainly written, such as your bizarre
              claim that an exemption that is the same for everyone
              would have to be calculated individually.

              > which is why you suppose mailing
              > addresses equal land tenure,

              I have said no such thing. You know this.

              > exemptions contingent on land use does not drive up
              > the demand for land,

              I have said no such thing. You know this, too.

              > and only people who have no land are deprived of land.

              ??? That's what YOU said, sunshine, not me, and I
              corrected your error. Remember? Look up to just below
              your absurd "Let them eat cake" comment.

              > > > The only tracking necessary for calculating
              > > > dividends is a simple census of who was living
              > > > in the country during the dividend year.
              > >
              > > Oh? Then how are the dividends actually delivered
              > > to each individual recipient?
              >
              > Look up the word "calculating."

              Look up the word, "uniform."

              > > How does the massive dividend bureaucracy
              > > determine who is authorized to receive/administer
              > > the dividends for children and legally incompetent
              > > adults?
              >
              > It has already done so.

              Oh? When did it do that? Round about the same time it
              figured out where people live?

              > > Do prison inmates get dividends?
              >
              > I would think so.

              Try selling that at the polls.

              > > What would they be compensated for, as they are
              > > not at liberty to use land anyway?
              >
              > Again, you are venting out of ignorance.

              Kindly do not practise your dishonesty and
              relentlessly insulting demeanor on me.

              > People in jail who have land *do* get the benefit
              > of that land, even in jail, by renting it to others
              > or hiring people to make it profitable for them.

              ??? Talk about venting out of ignorance! Landholders
              pocketing rent while doing nothing is exactly the kind
              of thing we are trying to stop! _Hello?_

              > People in jail who have no land are prevented from
              > this opportunity because they have no land, not
              > because they are in jail.

              ??? "Opportunity?" You are even adoping the anti-LVT
              rhetoric of calling landowner privilege just another
              "opportunity"??!?

              It is precisely OPPORTUNITY that landowners deprive
              others of, whether those landowners are living in a
              big house or _the_ Big House.

              ROTFL! Stick a fork in yourself, Dan. You're done.

              > You are not so stupid that you could not
              > have figured this out, but your desire to win
              > arguments consistently
              > trumps your desire to think with an open mind.

              As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

              -- Roy Langston

            • Dan Sullivan
              ... It is not beside the point at all, once you realize that the point is that Roy cannot be wrong. ... Well, our net benefit is the same. If everyone pays the
              Message 6 of 29 , Nov 9, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                On 9 Nov 2009 at 17:23, Harry Pollard wrote:

                > In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan
                > Sullivan" <pimann@> wrote:
                > >
                > > > > Thus, your statement that each person would get
                > > > > exactly the same benefit is clearly false.
                >
                > RL: Of course, you will now be providing a direct,
                > > > verbatim, in-context quote where I made that
                > > > statement.
                > >
                > DS: "As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for
                > all resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be
                > capitalized as land value."
                >
                > - Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:56:02 +0000
                >
                > RL: As discerning readers will note, the above quote does
                > not say what you claim it says.

                > Roy, this gets silly. If the exemption is a benefit to each person who
                > receives it and "is equal for all resident citizens" then presumably
                > each person gets an equal benefit. That any individual may not want to
                > use the benefit, or might lose it in a card game, or whatever, is
                > beside the point.

                It is not beside the point at all, once you realize that the point is that
                Roy cannot be wrong.

                > There again, if it's not a benefit why would they want it? In any
                > event, it seems pretty nonsensical. If the full Rent is being
                > collected then no-one gets any Rent from his land. So, if you have
                > several acres of Manhattan and I have a suburban home and we both pay
                > the full Rent our use of community resources is the same.

                Well, our net benefit is the same. If everyone pays the market rent,
                there is no net benefit. If everyone gets the same dividend, then the net
                benefit is the same for everyone. If some people are exempt from
                paying rent, then they *are* getting a net benefit at the expense of the
                community. That is what Roy wants, because he doesn't understand
                that if exclusive possession of land without compensating the
                community is a privilege, it's still a small privilege if it's a small amount
                of land.

                > You spend a lot of space on landlords and tenants, yet if the Rent is
                > fully collected, there is little point in being a landlord. You get
                > nothing back from the land - the community gets the Rent.

                This is exactly right if you realize that being a land manager is labor,
                and the net return to intelligent land management is wages.

                > Indeed, your arguments seem to view things in a Georgist society as
                > being pretty much as they are today. You appear to have no idea of the
                > economic consequences of collecting full Rent.

                I think that's an overstatement, Harry. Roy definitely has some idea,
                just not a clear idea. Learning new insights requires letting go of old
                perspectives.

                > As I've said, in earlier E-Mails you contradicted yourself - plainly -
                > a consequence I would say of your faulty understanding. I actually put
                > together evidence of this, then decided not to use it. It would only
                > involve endless quibbling about this or that word, rather as your
                > refusal above to recognize what you had written to Dan and accept it
                > as a mistake.

                Might as well try to convert the Pope.

                -ds
              • roy_langston1
                ... So every citizen gets the same CD no matter where they live, even if it s out of the country? ... How could the enormous, intrusive, complicated,
                Message 7 of 29 , Nov 11, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:

                  > Quoting roy_langston1 (Roy Langston) on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:01:40 -0000:
                  >
                  > ___Roy___
                  > And of course, no "very intrusive and continual census"
                  > would be required: people would just notify the land
                  > tax office when they moved, same as they do now for
                  > their driver's licenses, voter registration, etc.
                  > How would the government deliver a CD check to each
                  > individual without knowing where they lived, hmmm?
                  > -----
                  >
                  > By getting mail.

                  So every citizen gets the same CD no matter where
                  they live, even if it's out of the country?

                  > Presuming outright maildrops (such
                  > as PO Boxes) not be allowed for distribution of CDs
                  > or exemptions,

                  How could the enormous, intrusive, complicated,
                  overbearing and arrogant CD bureaucracy verify
                  that an address is not a maildrop any less
                  intrusively than the small, sleek and efficient
                  exemption office?

                  > how will it know whether a tenant of
                  > a holder of 100 square miles of prime bottom land
                  > (or an entire downtown if you prefer urban examples)
                  > use the entirety, or just enough for a mailbox?

                  As the exemption would only be for resident
                  citizens, they would have to reside there.

                  > And if the tenant skips out for unregistered Andean
                  > mountaineering, he may not get any checks from Peru
                  > or neighbouring countries, but will be presumed
                  > to still be using whatever portion of that bottom
                  > or downtown land he's registered as using.

                  Not if he's gone for longer than a vacation,
                  he won't. For a landholder to use exemptions
                  from people who weren't using the land or
                  weren't resident in that jurisdiction would
                  be tax fraud, and subject to the normal
                  penalties for such.

                  > You going
                  > to send so the recipient must sign for each check?

                  As they are presumably paying monthly rent, signing
                  and remitting a check-like exemption authorization
                  form too doesn't seem like that much of a burden,
                  complication, or intrusion.

                  > You still won't know whether he's using what he
                  > claimed, or timed his return from Peru to meet
                  > the mailman or traipse to the post office.

                  There may be no sharp line between "on vacation" and
                  "no longer resident," but why presume that it could
                  be a more significant issue for an exemption than for
                  a CD? Do you intend to give CDs to citizens residing
                  in foreign countries? If not, then your objection to
                  the exemption on grounds of intrusiveness is bogus.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > How would it ensure people without bank accounts
                  > would not be ripped off by check cashing companies?
                  > -----
                  >
                  > Does this concern CDs or exemptions?

                  CDs, obviously, as the exemption is not a check.

                  > If former, why can't the post office cash them?

                  And if the nearest post office is 100 miles away?

                  > And if latter, post
                  > or assessor's office may need to break them up for
                  > people using^H claiming to use several small parcels.

                  The exemption would be for a single parcel.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > <sigh> Does the universal personal income
                  > tax exemption have any such effects?
                  > -----
                  >
                  > The penalties of perjury clause and demands for
                  > marriage and birth certificates (Does "Barack Obama" get
                  > a personal exemption?) may deter them, but it happens.

                  Oh? How? Where?

                  > And it's only "universal" for federal employees.
                  > (Just try getting it without a Social Security number.)

                  Nonsense. Anyone who pays income tax gets the
                  personal exemption. It's part of the tax calculation.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > Now you just have to explain how the exemption would require
                  > greater expansion of the fiat money supply than a CD.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > CD needn't do any such thing. (Sorry, Stephen and Dan.
                  > Just don't issue rent anticipation CDs.)

                  Neither need an exemption, and you have not provided,
                  nor will you ever be providing, any reason to think it
                  would.

                  > Exemption is a money substitute for specific uses.

                  No, it is not, any more than the personal income tax
                  exemption is. It simply reduces a tax liability.

                  > I fear I may be giving you ideas about how to enlist
                  > landlords (tax payers) as tenant and land use snitches.

                  The simple prudence of not committing or being
                  party to tax fraud cannot honestly be called,
                  "snitching." Presumably that will not stop you
                  from calling it that.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > It would probably be tracked by the month,
                  > as that is how people tend to pay their rent,
                  > property tax installments, utility bills, etc.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > In all the several United States I know of,
                  > property taxes are billed annually.

                  But they are often paid in monthly installments,
                  especially bundled with mortgage payments.

                  > But darn; that
                  > holds those secret Peruvian trips to a single month!

                  Why resort to such silly nonsense?

                  > (Unless a proxy can receive, sign and tender them.)

                  Parents, guardians, caregivers, etc. who are
                  responsible for those who are not legally
                  responsible for themselves would be authorized
                  to disburse their exemptions.

                  > Will the mailman bring them to jails, hospitals,
                  > summer camps, foreign deployments, etc.?

                  I don't anticipate prison inmates being eligible for
                  the exemption, as they are not otherwise at liberty
                  to use land, and thus merit no compensation for loss
                  of that liberty. Long-term care hospitals would use
                  the exemptions of their residents, and they presumably
                  receive postal service. Summer camps are not
                  considered a change of residence for income tax or
                  voting purposes, so presumably would not for land tax
                  exemption purposes, either. Foreign deployments may
                  involve abandoning one's domestic residence, but if
                  there is a dependent family remaining at home, the
                  exemption could be made over to their use.

                  > ___Scott___
                  > Why do you wish to give *residents* a rental
                  > exemption, anyhow?
                  >
                  > ___Roy___
                  > They are the ones whose rights to use the local
                  > land are being violated without just compensation.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > They have no such right, any more than do foreign
                  > tourists.

                  Yes, they most certainly do, as they would be at
                  liberty to use the land were they not forcibly
                  prevented. Tourists do not have the same rights as
                  citizens -- they can't vote, for example -- and the
                  rights they do have are delineated and secured by
                  the local government, according to voter decision.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > Non-residents are in no position to use the land.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > Then those tourists are "residents" while they stay?

                  Yes, but they aren't citizens, and don't have the
                  same rights as citizens.

                  > Why can't domiciled inhabitants use land?

                  They can, but as non-citizens, they are not full
                  participants in society, nor do they have the same
                  rights and responsibilities as citizens. They can
                  be deported, for example, and citizens cannot.

                  > ___Scott___
                  > A "resident" is a carpetbagger, an office,
                  > and someone because not domiciled according
                  > to the federales, has no actual right to inhabit.
                  >
                  > ___Roy___
                  > I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > Their citizenship and domicile is in D.C.
                  > That would be somewhat crowded with 300 million
                  > inhabitants, and would leave no one to make
                  > exactions in the several States, so they "reside"
                  > in those States while ripping them off; to an
                  > even greater extent if they get tax exemptions.

                  I repeat: I have no idea what that is supposed to
                  mean. Ripping them off how?

                  > resident
                  >
                  > ?noun
                  > a diplomatic representative, inferior in rank
                  > to an ambassador, residing at a foreign court.
                  >
                  > ?adjective
                  > living or staying at a place in discharge of duty.
                  >
                  > reside
                  >
                  > -intr.v.
                  >
                  > To be vested, as a power or right
                  >
                  > [Middle English residen, from Old French resider,
                  > from Latin residere, to remain behind...]

                  Equivocation fallacy. That is not the relevant
                  sense of "resident," as you must know very well.

                  > ___Scott___
                  > [Rent exemption] increases the flow of funds
                  > available to service mortgage debt. (Indirectly,
                  > by saving legal tender of unlimited applicability
                  > from being needed to pay land rental/tax.)
                  >
                  > ___Roy___
                  > So would a CD.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > Only if issued in anticipation of rent proceeds.

                  That is false, as proved by the effect of welfare
                  increases on recipients' rents.

                  > So stop the tax farming, already!

                  That exhortation bears no relationship to anything
                  I have proposed.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > So do economic growth and prosperity.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > Only if in the form of specie mining and mintage (or
                  > brick-making and deposit, or wheat growing and storage,
                  > etc.).

                  Wrong. The increase of land rents with GDP is well
                  known to geoists and not controversial.

                  > Otherwise, this reduces prices and per capita
                  > (perhaps not total) rent.

                  No, it does not, as all history proves. Haven't you
                  read "Progress and Poverty"?

                  > What, you think that will occur fast enough to
                  > necessitate monthly rent repricing?

                  Inexplicable.

                  > ___Roy___
                  > So what? Land rent recovery abolishes mortgages
                  > anyway, by eliminating their economic rationale.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > More quibbling. I addressed this under the premise
                  > of far less than total rent recovery.

                  OK: if you ever want it to be politically feasible to
                  proceed from there to total rent recovery, you darn
                  well better stop contriving ludicrous and unfounded
                  objections to a uniform, universal personal land tax
                  exemption.

                  > Their
                  > rationale only disappears near full recovery, and
                  > they may still exist on improvements. (Perhaps also
                  > requiring insurance against changes in rent making
                  > said improvements prematurely inappropriate.

                  I would anticipate the land tax administration
                  indexing rent increases to GDP increase for a
                  limited term when new improvements are built,
                  based on their expected useful life and anticipated
                  changes in local land use patterns.

                  > And if financial and legal system remains as
                  > crass as it has been there will also be personal
                  > loans (mortgaged wages and productive lives).

                  And CDs...

                  > ___Roy___
                  > Nonsense lacking any basis in fact.
                  > -----
                  >
                  > How does assessor or mailman know how much and
                  > one actually uses, and how?

                  It doesn't matter. The exemption simply reduces
                  the land tax liability on the parcel one is using.

                  > You going to ban
                  > bearer money and unreported transfers of goods
                  > so land owners can't buy non-tenants' exemptions?

                  I'm going to ban use of exemptions for land the
                  recipient is not using.

                  -- Roy Langston
                • roy_langston1
                  ... I was thinking, disgraceful, but, whatever... ... Non sequitur, as already proved. You re a senior, Harry. All seniors get equal exemptions from paying
                  Message 8 of 29 , Nov 11, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan
                    > Sullivan" <pimann@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > > Thus, your statement that each person would get
                    > > > > exactly the same benefit is clearly false.
                    >
                    > RL: Of course, you will now be providing a direct,
                    > > > verbatim, in-context quote where I made that
                    > > > statement.
                    > >
                    > DS: "As the exemption applies to persons, not land, and is equal for
                    > all resident citizens and equally applicable to all land, it cannot be capitalized as land value."
                    >
                    > - Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:56:02 +0000
                    >
                    > RL: As discerning readers will note, the above quote does
                    > not say what you claim it says.
                    >
                    > Roy, this gets silly.

                    I was thinking, "disgraceful," but, whatever...

                    > If the exemption is a benefit to each person who
                    > receives it and "is equal for all resident citizens"
                    > then presumably each person gets an equal benefit.

                    Non sequitur, as already proved. You're a senior,
                    Harry. All seniors get equal exemptions from paying
                    full price at public amenities, on public transit, etc.
                    That exemption is a benefit to each person who receives
                    it and is equal for all seniors.

                    Do all seniors then get equal benefit from it? The
                    notion is self-evidently absurd.

                    > That any individual may not want to
                    > use the benefit, or might lose it in a card game,
                    > or whatever, is beside the point.

                    ??? How could some people not using the benefit be
                    beside the point of whether everyone gets equal
                    benefit from it?

                    > There again, if it's not a benefit why would they
                    > want it? In any event, it seems pretty nonsensical.

                    Not if the overarching goal is to prevent honest and
                    thoughtful consideration of anything I say, and
                    deceive others as to its content.

                    > You spend a lot of space on landlords and tenants,
                    > yet if the Rent is fully collected, there is little
                    > point in being a landlord. You get nothing back
                    > from the land - the community gets the Rent.

                    Being a landlord and being a landowner are not the
                    same. Managing improvements that many people use,
                    providing services such as cleaning, maintenance and
                    security, finding and keeping good tenants, etc.
                    could be a profitable and productive business.

                    > Indeed, your arguments seem to view things in a
                    > Georgist society as being pretty much as they are
                    > today. You appear to have no idea of the
                    > economic consequences of collecting full Rent.

                    I understand them better than you, as I routinely
                    demonstrate. In some respects, a geoist society
                    would be much like ours, in others quite different.

                    > As I've said, in earlier E-Mails you contradicted
                    > yourself - plainly - a consequence I would say of
                    > your faulty understanding.

                    Yet when asked for the evidence for this claim you
                    invariably demur. At least that's more honest than
                    what Dan did: claim that a quote said something it
                    self-evidently did not say.

                    > I actually put together evidence of this, then
                    > decided not to use it.

                    Very prudent, as you would merely have been following
                    Dan's unfortunate example, and would have suffered the
                    same humiliation when your dishonesty was exposed.

                    > It would only involve endless quibbling about this
                    > or that word, rather as your refusal above to
                    > recognize what you had written to Dan and accept it
                    > as a mistake.

                    Readers are invited to verify for themselves that the
                    quote Dan provided did not say what he claimed it said.

                    -- Roy Langston
                  • Dan Sullivan
                    ... I would say every *resident* gets the same dividend, no matter where he lives in the jurisdiction that issues the dividend. I would not limit the dividend
                    Message 9 of 29 , Nov 11, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 11 Nov 2009 at 20:26, roy_langston1 wrote:

                      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Quoting roy_langston1 (Roy Langston) on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:01:40 -0000:
                      > >
                      > > ___Roy___
                      > > And of course, no "very intrusive and continual census"
                      > > would be required: people would just notify the land
                      > > tax office when they moved, same as they do now for
                      > > their driver's licenses, voter registration, etc.
                      > > How would the government deliver a CD check to each
                      > > individual without knowing where they lived, hmmm?
                      > > -----
                      > >
                      > > By getting mail.
                      >
                      > So every citizen gets the same CD no matter where
                      > they live, even if it's out of the country?

                      I would say every *resident* gets the same dividend, no matter where
                      he lives in the jurisdiction that issues the dividend. I would not limit the
                      dividend to citizens, nor would I extend it to non-resident citizens.

                      > > Presuming outright maildrops (such
                      > > as PO Boxes) not be allowed for distribution of CDs
                      > > or exemptions,
                      >
                      > How could the enormous, intrusive, complicated,
                      > overbearing and arrogant CD bureaucracy verify
                      > that an address is not a maildrop any less
                      > intrusively than the small, sleek and efficient
                      > exemption office?

                      It would be exactly the same for both. The difference is that the CD
                      bureaucracy would not have to *calculate* how much land is being
                      used by each person. That is an additional complication.

                      > > how will it know whether a tenant of
                      > > a holder of 100 square miles of prime bottom land
                      > > (or an entire downtown if you prefer urban examples)
                      > > use the entirety, or just enough for a mailbox?
                      >
                      > As the exemption would only be for resident
                      > citizens, they would have to reside there.

                      Like I said, just like the CD, only more complicated to calculate. After
                      all, what's to stop me from applying some of my exemption to land I
                      don't actually use, thereby selling my share of the exemption to
                      someone else? If I get the dividend directly, all this unnecessary
                      complication and chicanery is avoided.

                      > > And if the tenant skips out for unregistered Andean
                      > > mountaineering, he may not get any checks from Peru
                      > > or neighbouring countries, but will be presumed
                      > > to still be using whatever portion of that bottom
                      > > or downtown land he's registered as using.

                      > Not if he's gone for longer than a vacation,
                      > he won't. For a landholder to use exemptions
                      > from people who weren't using the land or
                      > weren't resident in that jurisdiction would
                      > be tax fraud, and subject to the normal
                      > penalties for such.

                      Just like the CD, only more complicated. With the CD going to the
                      actual resident, and not to the resident's landlord, passport records
                      would attach directly to the person getting the CD, and deductions
                      made accordingly. With your exemptions, the landlord can claim he
                      didn't realize the tenant was abroad, which might even be true. After all,
                      what business is it of the landlord to keep tabs on his tenant's travels?

                      > > You going
                      > > to send so the recipient must sign for each check?
                      >
                      > As they are presumably paying monthly rent, signing
                      > and remitting a check-like exemption authorization
                      > form too doesn't seem like that much of a burden,
                      > complication, or intrusion.

                      It is, none the less, an *additional* burden, complication and intrusion.

                      > > You still won't know whether he's using what he
                      > > claimed, or timed his return from Peru to meet
                      > > the mailman or traipse to the post office.
                      >
                      > There may be no sharp line between "on vacation" and
                      > "no longer resident," but why presume that it could
                      > be a more significant issue for an exemption than for
                      > a CD?

                      Because it would involve more intermediaries than the CD, and
                      because it involves the resident not only showing that he was living in
                      the country, but that he was also renting the amount of land he says he
                      was renting. If I were renting less land than that to which my exemption
                      entitles me, and Harry were renting more than his exemption gives him,
                      it would behoove me to pretend I was also renting some of Harry's land,
                      and for Harry to split the proceeds with me.

                      Of course, I would only have to do that because of a law based on the
                      illogical notion I am not denied my share of land if I don't have it, and
                      that only those with their share of land are to be compensated for not
                      having it.

                      > Do you intend to give CDs to citizens residing
                      > in foreign countries? If not, then your objection to
                      > the exemption on grounds of intrusiveness is bogus.

                      Roy, everyone but you understands that your scheme is much more
                      intrusive. You would understand it too, if you stopped arguing enough
                      to actually think.

                      CD intrusiveness:
                      Do you live in this country?
                      Do passport records show you living abroad?
                      Here's your dividend.

                      Exemption intrusiveness:
                      Do you live in this country?
                      Do passport records show you living abroad?
                      Where exactly do you live?
                      Who else lives there?
                      How much of the land do you rent?
                      Who is your landlord?
                      Can you or he prove that you live where you say you live?
                      Are you claiming an exemption for land used by someone else?
                      Can you prove that you aren't?
                      Here is your exemption certificate.
                      Give it to your landlord.
                      He will pay his site rent with it.
                      He will lower your rent accordingly.
                      No, honest he will.
                      Really.
                      We promise.

                      __Roy___

                      > > How would it ensure people without bank accounts
                      > > would not be ripped off by check cashing companies?

                      We need more dumb nanny-state questions like that. How about,

                      "How would it ensure people would not get mugged on the way to (or
                      from) the check cashing companies?"

                      > > Does this concern CDs or exemptions?
                      >
                      > CDs, obviously, as the exemption is not a check.

                      > > If former, why can't the post office cash them?
                      >
                      > And if the nearest post office is 100 miles away?

                      On what planet would that be?

                      > > And if latter, post
                      > > or assessor's office may need to break them up for
                      > > people using^H claiming to use several small parcels.
                      >
                      > The exemption would be for a single parcel.

                      That's too bad, as it would lead to an artificial consolidation of parcels.
                      For example, some people in PIttsburgh have a house on one parcel
                      and a garage on an adjacent parcel, and others have the house and
                      garage on a single parcel that's twice as big. Why should the latter get
                      a bigger exemption than the former? Because Roy can't admit he might
                      be wrong..

                      > > ___Roy___
                      > > <sigh> Does the universal personal income
                      > > tax exemption have any such effects?
                      > > -----
                      > >
                      > > The penalties of perjury clause and demands for
                      > > marriage and birth certificates (Does "Barack Obama" get
                      > > a personal exemption?) may deter them, but it happens.
                      >
                      > Oh? How? Where?

                      I highly recommend *A Bridge Across Forever* by Richard Bach.

                      Or, just google "income tax fraud."

                      > > And it's only "universal" for federal employees.
                      > > (Just try getting it without a Social Security number.)
                      >
                      > Nonsense. Anyone who pays income tax gets the
                      > personal exemption. It's part of the tax calculation.

                      Try filling out a US income tax form without a social security number. If
                      you don't have one, they make you get one.

                      > > ___Roy___
                      > > Now you just have to explain how the exemption would require
                      > > greater expansion of the fiat money supply than a CD.

                      > > CD needn't do any such thing. (Sorry, Stephen and Dan.
                      > > Just don't issue rent anticipation CDs.)
                      >
                      > Neither need an exemption, and you have not provided,
                      > nor will you ever be providing, any reason to think it
                      > would.

                      An exemption would increase the demand for land, and thereby drive
                      up rents. This is because you have to rent land to get the exemption.
                      This in turn would create all manner of economic dislocations that
                      nobody need explain to anyone on this list, except maybe Roy.

                      > > Exemption is a money substitute for specific uses.
                      >
                      > No, it is not, any more than the personal income tax
                      > exemption is. It simply reduces a tax liability.

                      It is a money substitute for paying land rent. If you don't pay land rent,
                      you don't get the exemption. This is different from income tax, because
                      income tax is a true tax, where land tax or site rent is a payment for
                      something you get. Thus, a land rent exemption is very much a
                      substitute. It is substantially like issuing non-transferrable land rent
                      vouchers that can only be used by the person who rents enough land to
                      use them.

                      > > I fear I may be giving you ideas about how to enlist
                      > > landlords (tax payers) as tenant and land use snitches.
                      >
                      > The simple prudence of not committing or being party to tax fraud
                      > cannot honestly be called, "snitching." Presumably that will not stop
                      > you from calling it that.

                      It is snitching. Honestly it is. Sadly, people in Roy's scheme have to
                      commit fraud just to get what the CD would have given them in the first
                      place - compensation for being without land. Like the income tax, Roy's
                      exemption scheme "involves the employment of a large number of
                      officials clothed with inquisitorial powers; temptations to bribery, and
                      perjury, and all other means of evasion, which beget a demoralization
                      of opinion, and put a premium upon unscrupulousness and a tax upon
                      conscience."

                      > > ___Roy___
                      > > It would probably be tracked by the month,
                      > > as that is how people tend to pay their rent,
                      > > property tax installments, utility bills, etc.
                      > > -----
                      > >
                      > > In all the several United States I know of,
                      > > property taxes are billed annually.
                      >
                      > But they are often paid in monthly installments,
                      > especially bundled with mortgage payments.

                      No, Roy, they are almost never paid to the government in monthly
                      installments. Even when a mortgagee pays the bank monthly, the bank
                      does not pay the government monthly.

                      > > But darn; that
                      > > holds those secret Peruvian trips to a single month!
                      >
                      > Why resort to such silly nonsense?

                      Roy, there is no option to have a discussion with you that does not
                      include silly nonsense.

                      > > (Unless a proxy can receive, sign and tender them.)
                      >
                      > Parents, guardians, caregivers, etc. who are
                      > responsible for those who are not legally
                      > responsible for themselves would be authorized
                      > to disburse their exemptions.

                      Just like disbursing the CDs, except that the CDs are not contingent on
                      holding land.

                      Good lord, I'm only half way through. Never mind the rest. If Roy had
                      something cogent to say, he should have said it sooner.

                      -ds
                    • Dan Sullivan
                      ... A legend in his own mind. -ds
                      Message 10 of 29 , Nov 11, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 11 Nov 2009 at 20:59, roy_langston1 wrote:

                        > I understand them better than you, as I routinely
                        > demonstrate.

                        A legend in his own mind.

                        -ds
                      • roy_langston1
                        ... More accurately, I cannot be cowed by dishonest crap. ... That depends on what the net benefit is net of. A hermit who gets a CD despite not being
                        Message 11 of 29 , Nov 11, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

                          > It is not beside the point at all, once you realize
                          > that the point is that Roy cannot be wrong.

                          More accurately, I cannot be cowed by dishonest crap.

                          > If everyone pays the market rent,
                          > there is no net benefit. If everyone gets the
                          > same dividend, then the net
                          > benefit is the same for everyone.

                          That depends on what the "net" benefit is net of.
                          A hermit who gets a CD despite not being interested
                          in using any good land is getting a larger net
                          benefit than someone who uses their whole CD to
                          obtain access to land they would otherwise have been
                          at liberty to use. The hermit gets purchasing power
                          as "compensation" for doing nothing and giving up
                          nothing.

                          > If some people are exempt from
                          > paying rent, then they *are* getting a net
                          > benefit at the expense of the
                          > community. That is what Roy wants,

                          That is another fabrication on your part. EVERYONE
                          would be exempt from paying the same amount of rent.
                          I don't know how much more clearly, or how many more
                          times, I can explain that to you.

                          > because he doesn't understand
                          > that if exclusive possession of land without
                          > compensating the community is a privilege, it's
                          > still a small privilege if it's a small amount
                          > of land.

                          Yes, it is a privilege extended as COMPENSATION for
                          violation of a right, as that is the only way to
                          secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to use
                          what nature provided for all. Dan just does not
                          understand that if pocketing rent in return for
                          doing nothing and contributing nothing is a privilege
                          when landowners do it, it's still a privilege when
                          hermits, prison inmates, and others who are not
                          giving up access to any good land they would
                          otherwise be at liberty to use do it.

                          Those who pay rent under a land rent recovery system
                          are compensating the community of those who would
                          otherwise be at liberty to use the land for
                          depriving them of that opportunity. Likewise, the
                          community must rightly compensate those who give up
                          their opportunity to use the land they would
                          otherwise be at liberty to use. The rent payer pays
                          for his privilege, and so does the exemption user.
                          The CD recipient, by contrast, may or may not be
                          making any commensurate payment in return for it.

                          > This is exactly right if you realize that being a
                          > land manager is labor, and the net return to
                          > intelligent land management is wages.

                          Right: that is a "landlord" in the sense of someone
                          who provides improvements and services to tenants,
                          rather than just someone who pockets land rent -- a
                          land user, not a landowner.

                          -- Roy Langston
                        • Dan Sullivan
                          ... Roy (and George Orwell s thought police ) want a system that figures out what people are interested in. Either you rent a particular amount of land for
                          Message 12 of 29 , Nov 12, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 11 Nov 2009 at 21:48, roy_langston1 wrote:

                            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

                            > That depends on what the "net" benefit is net of.
                            > A hermit who gets a CD despite not being interested
                            > in using any good land is getting a larger net
                            > benefit than someone who uses their whole CD to
                            > obtain access to land they would otherwise have been
                            > at liberty to use. 

                            Roy (and George Orwell's "thought police") want a system that figures out what people are "interested in." Either you rent a particular amount of land for free, because there is no rent up to the exempted quota, or you lose out.

                            Thus, if A rents 2 shares worth of land and B is a hermit and rents no land, the state wants rent on half the land A rents. But if A and B pretend to be a couple, the state wants no rent at all. Thus, Roy's state has an interest in whatever relationship A has with B.

                            Roy also said,

                            > I cannot be cowed by dishonest crap.

                            We never thought otherwise. Roy is so full of his own dishonest crap that he couldn't possibly see beyond it.

                            -ds

                             
                          • roy_langston1
                            ... So, Dan, you agree that the CD requires just as much intrusion as the exemption to establish residence, and that the CD Gestapo would have to follow
                            Message 13 of 29 , Nov 14, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan"
                              <pimann@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > On 11 Nov 2009 at 20:26, roy_langston1 wrote:
                              >
                              > > So every citizen gets the same CD no matter where
                              > > they live, even if it's out of the country?
                              >
                              > I would say every *resident* gets the same
                              > dividend, no matter where
                              > he lives in the jurisdiction that issues the
                              > dividend. I would not limit the
                              > dividend to citizens, nor would I extend it to
                              > non-resident citizens.

                              So, Dan, you agree that the CD requires just as
                              much "intrusion" as the exemption to establish
                              residence, and that the CD Gestapo would have to
                              follow every individual around to make sure they
                              actually lived in the jurisdiction, blah, blah,
                              blah. So your objections to the exemption on the
                              grounds of excessive intrusion and bureaucracy
                              were in fact just spurious fabrications, because
                              a CD also requires government to have similar
                              information on recipients. Thought so.

                              > > How could the enormous, intrusive, complicated,
                              > > overbearing and arrogant CD bureaucracy verify
                              > > that an address is not a maildrop any less
                              > > intrusively than the small, sleek and efficient
                              > > exemption office?
                              >
                              > It would be exactly the same for both. The
                              > difference is that the CD bureaucracy would not
                              > have to *calculate* how much land is being
                              > used by each person. That is an additional
                              > complication.

                              No, Dan. That is not a difference, because the
                              exemption does not require any such calculation.
                              It just reduces the tax liability on the land
                              parcel the recipient is using.

                              > > As the exemption would only be for resident
                              > > citizens, they would have to reside there.
                              >
                              > Like I said, just like the CD, only more
                              > complicated to calculate.

                              No, Dan. The amount of the CD would be calculated
                              according to some sort of rubric, and would then
                              be equal for all, just like the exemption.

                              > After all, what's
                              > to stop me from applying some of my exemption
                              > to land I don't actually use, thereby selling
                              > my share of the exemption to someone else?

                              No, Dan, you can only apply your exemption to one
                              parcel that you are using. You can't split it.

                              > If I get the dividend directly, all this
                              > unnecessary complication and chicanery is
                              > avoided.

                              Along with justice, efficiency, and the solution to
                              poverty, homelessness and other social problems...

                              > > Not if he's gone for longer than a vacation,
                              > > he won't. For a landholder to use exemptions
                              > > from people who weren't using the land or
                              > > weren't resident in that jurisdiction would
                              > > be tax fraud, and subject to the normal
                              > > penalties for such.
                              >
                              > Just like the CD, only more complicated. With
                              > the CD going to the actual resident, and not
                              > to the resident's landlord, passport records
                              > would attach directly to the person getting the
                              > CD, and deductions made accordingly. With your
                              > exemptions, the landlord can claim he didn't
                              > realize the tenant was abroad, which might even
                              > be true. After all, what business is it of the
                              > landlord to keep tabs on his tenant's travels?

                              No, Dan, it wouldn't matter. If the tenant is not
                              eligible for the exemption during a given period
                              because he was not resident, he would just pay
                              his landlord cash rent instead of using the
                              exemption, just the same as if he was paying rent
                              out of his CD and became ineligible. It's not up
                              to the landlord to keep tabs on his tenants. What
                              happens if a tenant pays his rent with a bum check?
                              The landlord just goes back and gets a good one.
                              Same with a bum exemption form.

                              Your objections to the exemption are all just
                              fabrications of your fervid imagination, and
                              consistently exaggerated, spurious and dishonest.

                              > > As they are presumably paying monthly rent, signing
                              > > and remitting a check-like exemption authorization
                              > > form too doesn't seem like that much of a burden,
                              > > complication, or intrusion.
                              >
                              > It is, none the less, an *additional* burden,
                              > complication and intrusion.

                              But incomparably smaller than the societal costs
                              associated with giving out cash for doing nothing.

                              > > > You still won't know whether he's using what he
                              > > > claimed, or timed his return from Peru to meet
                              > > > the mailman or traipse to the post office.
                              > >
                              > > There may be no sharp line between "on vacation" and
                              > > "no longer resident," but why presume that it could
                              > > be a more significant issue for an exemption than for
                              > > a CD?
                              >
                              > Because it would involve more intermediaries
                              > than the CD, and because it involves the resident
                              > not only showing that he was living in the country,
                              > but that he was also renting the amount of land he
                              > says he was renting.

                              No, Dan, you are just wrong again. The exemption is
                              simply applied to whatever land parcel he is using.

                              > If I were renting less land than that to which
                              > my exemption entitles me, and Harry were renting
                              > more than his exemption gives him, it would behoove
                              > me to pretend I was also renting some of Harry's
                              > land, and for Harry to split the proceeds with me.

                              No, Dan, you can only use your exemption for land you
                              are using, and only one parcel.

                              > Of course, I would only have to do that because of
                              > a law based on the illogical notion I am not denied
                              > my share of land

                              No, Dan, there is no such thing as "your share of land."
                              That notion really IS illogical. What people are denied
                              is use of ALL the land they would otherwise be at
                              liberty to use.

                              > if I don't have it,

                              No, Dan, I have specified _using_ land as the basis
                              of the exemption, not "having" it. The concept of
                              "having" land is another fabrication on your part,
                              which you are falsely attributing to me in order to
                              construct a dishonest strawman fallacy.

                              > and that only
                              > those with their share of land are to be
                              > compensated for not having it.

                              No, Dan, here you are just lying about what I have
                              plainly written. The compensation is not for not
                              "having their share" of the land, but for being
                              deprived of their liberty to use ALL the land they
                              would otherwise be at liberty to use.

                              > > Do you intend to give CDs to citizens residing
                              > > in foreign countries? If not, then your objection to
                              > > the exemption on grounds of intrusiveness is bogus.
                              >
                              > Roy, everyone but you understands that your
                              > scheme is much more intrusive.

                              No, Dan, it isn't.

                              > CD intrusiveness:
                              > Do you live in this country?
                              > Do passport records show you living abroad?
                              > Here's your dividend.

                              To compensate you for loss of something of which
                              you may or may not actually be deprived...

                              And if you are a prison inmate, feel free to invest
                              your CD in alcohol, pornography, or buying off your
                              cellmate as that is your right (it's _your_ money!).

                              If you are in an abusive relationship, feel free to
                              have your CD extorted from you by your partner, as
                              that is also your right. It's your money!

                              If you are homeless and destitute, feel free to
                              spend your CD on drugs, as they will make you feel
                              better for a day or two about not having any food
                              or a place to sleep. It's your money!

                              What a marvelous thing it is to get "your" money
                              for doing nothing!

                              > Exemption intrusiveness:
                              > Do you live in this country?
                              > Do passport records show you living abroad?
                              > Where exactly do you live?
                              > Who else lives there?

                              No, Dan, that is another fabrication on your part.
                              There is no reason to know who else lives there
                              unless they are legal dependents of someone
                              remitting exemptions on their behalf.

                              > How much of the land do you rent?

                              No, Dan, that is another fabrication on your part.
                              There is no reason for the land tax office to know
                              that.

                              > Who is your landlord?

                              No, Dan, that is another fabrication on your part.
                              A landlord's identity need not be known to his
                              tenant to apply the exemption.

                              > Can you or he prove that you live where you
                              > say you live?

                              <yawn> Such as by... being on the voters list?

                              > Are you claiming an exemption for land used by
                              > someone else?

                              No, Dan, that is another fabrication on your part.

                              > Can you prove that you aren't?

                              No, Dan, that is another fabrication on your part.
                              It wouldn't matter if the land was being used by
                              someone else, as long as it was also being used
                              by the recipient.

                              > Here is your exemption certificate.
                              > Give it to your landlord.
                              > He will pay his site rent with it.
                              > He will lower your rent accordingly.
                              > No, honest he will.
                              > Really.
                              > We promise.

                              <sigh> And if he doesn't, you have the exact same
                              recourse as if he decided to charge you more than
                              the market rent because you have a CD to pay rent
                              with: go elsewhere.

                              The dishonesty of all your crap is truly nauseating,
                              Dan.

                              > > > If former, why can't the post office cash them?
                              > >
                              > > And if the nearest post office is 100 miles away?
                              >
                              > On what planet would that be?

                              There are places like that right in the USA.

                              > > The exemption would be for a single parcel.
                              >
                              > That's too bad, as it would lead to an artificial
                              > consolidation of parcels.

                              No, Dan, of course it wouldn't. Don't be absurd.

                              > For example, some people in PIttsburgh have a
                              > house on one parcel and a garage on an adjacent
                              > parcel,

                              ?? Ah, then it is obviously the _division_ that
                              is artificial, not the consolidation. Duh.

                              > and others have the house and garage on
                              > a single parcel that's twice as big. Why should
                              > the latter get a bigger exemption than the former?

                              The exemption is the same for every resident citizen.
                              Why would you want to encourage such minute division
                              of land?

                              > Because Roy can't admit he might be wrong..

                              Why resort to such juvenile garbage, Dan?

                              > > Nonsense. Anyone who pays income tax gets the
                              > > personal exemption. It's part of the tax
                              > > calculation.
                              >
                              > Try filling out a US income tax form without a
                              > social security number. If you don't have one,
                              > they make you get one.

                              ??? I just finished saying ANYONE WHO PAYS INCOME
                              TAX.

                              > An exemption would increase the demand for land,
                              > and thereby drive up rents. This is because you
                              > have to rent land to get the exemption.

                              Whereas an equivalent CD would increase the demand
                              for alcohol, drugs, pornography, lottery tickets,
                              junk food, hookers, tobacco, and everything else
                              that people too irresponsible to live in decent
                              conditions would squander free money on instead of
                              buying a lifestyle that isn't one big, unending
                              social problem.

                              > This in turn would create all manner of economic
                              > dislocations that nobody need explain to anyone
                              > on this list, except maybe Roy.

                              Whereas anti-exemption ideologues like Dan can't
                              figure out why giving people money for doing nothing
                              causes far worse economic and social dislocations
                              (just as when it is given to landowners for doing
                              nothing), no matter how many times it is explained
                              to them.

                              > > > Exemption is a money substitute for specific uses.
                              > >
                              > > No, it is not, any more than the personal income tax
                              > > exemption is. It simply reduces a tax liability.
                              >
                              > It is a money substitute for paying land rent.

                              No, Dan, that is not a money substitute, because
                              money by definition is GENERALLY accepted in exchange.

                              > If you don't pay land rent, you don't get the
                              > exemption. This is different from income tax,
                              > because income tax is a true tax, where land tax
                              > or site rent is a payment for something you get.

                              No, Dan, that is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. If
                              you don't have income, you don't get the personal
                              income tax exemption, either.

                              > Thus, a land rent exemption is very much a
                              > substitute.

                              No, Dan, it is a substitute for having the liberty
                              to use all land, not a substitute for money.

                              > It is substantially like issuing non-transferrable
                              > land rent vouchers that can only be used by the
                              > person who rents enough land to use them.

                              IOW, nothing like money.

                              > > The simple prudence of not committing or being
                              > > party to tax fraud cannot honestly be called,
                              > > "snitching." Presumably that will not stop
                              > > you from calling it that.
                              >
                              > It is snitching.

                              Thank you for confirming that it cannot honestly be
                              called snitching.

                              > Honestly it is. Sadly, people in Roy's scheme
                              > have to commit fraud just to get what the CD would
                              > have given them in the first place - compensation
                              > for being without land.

                              But if they don't want land, that is compensation for
                              contributing nothing, the same thing landowners now
                              get.

                              > Like the income tax, Roy's exemption scheme
                              > "involves the employment of a large number of
                              > officials clothed with inquisitorial powers;

                              No, Dan, that is just another fabrication on your part.

                              > temptations to bribery, and perjury, and all
                              > other means of evasion, which beget a
                              > demoralization of opinion, and put a premium
                              > upon unscrupulousness and a tax upon conscience."

                              <yawn> Ludicrous nonsense lacking any basis in fact.

                              > > > In all the several United States I know of,
                              > > > property taxes are billed annually.
                              > >
                              > > But they are often paid in monthly installments,
                              > > especially bundled with mortgage payments.
                              >
                              > No, Roy, they are almost never paid to the
                              > government in monthly installments. Even when a
                              > mortgagee pays the bank monthly, the bank
                              > does not pay the government monthly.

                              But the mortgagee pays it in monthly installments,
                              which is the relevant fact.

                              > > > But darn; that
                              > > > holds those secret Peruvian trips to a single month!
                              > >
                              > > Why resort to such silly nonsense?
                              >
                              > Roy, there is no option to have a discussion with
                              > you that does not include silly nonsense.

                              Why resort to such silly claims, Dan?

                              > > Parents, guardians, caregivers, etc. who are
                              > > responsible for those who are not legally
                              > > responsible for themselves would be authorized
                              > > to disburse their exemptions.
                              >
                              > Just like disbursing the CDs, except that the CDs
                              > are not contingent on holding land.

                              No, Dan, you "forgot" the other difference, the
                              really crucial difference: parents, etc. can
                              squander, lose, be robbed of, or otherwise not
                              _responsibly_ disburse a CD they receive on others'
                              behalf. They _cannot_ thus misappropriate a land
                              tax exemption they remit on others' behalf without
                              committing tax fraud.

                              > Good lord, I'm only half way through. Never mind
                              > the rest. If Roy had something cogent to say, he
                              > should have said it sooner.

                              ??? And you have the gall to complain that _others_
                              here reduce the signal-to-noise ratio and engage in
                              personal vendettas?

                              Disgraceful. Just disgraceful.

                              -- Roy Langston
                            • roy_langston1
                              ... No, that is of course another fabrication on your part. The proposed system simply secures every resident citizen equal, free access to land up to a
                              Message 14 of 29 , Nov 18, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > On 11 Nov 2009 at 21:48, roy_langston1 wrote:
                                >
                                > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@> wrote:
                                >
                                > > That depends on what the "net" benefit is net of.
                                > > A hermit who gets a CD despite not being interested
                                > > in using any good land is getting a larger net
                                > > benefit than someone who uses their whole CD to
                                > > obtain access to land they would otherwise have been
                                > > at liberty to use.
                                >
                                > Roy (and George Orwell's "thought police") want
                                > a system that figures out what people are
                                > "interested in."

                                No, that is of course another fabrication on your
                                part. The proposed system simply secures every
                                resident citizen equal, free access to land up to
                                a modest value sufficient for normal people to
                                live on and have access to opportunity.

                                > Either you rent a particular amount of land for
                                > free, because there is no rent up to the
                                > exempted quota, or you lose out.

                                What do you lose out on? Something you didn't want
                                anyway?

                                > Thus, if A rents 2 shares worth of land and B is
                                > a hermit and rents no land, the state wants rent
                                > on half the land A rents. But if A and B pretend
                                > to be a couple, the state wants no rent at all.
                                > Thus, Roy's state has an interest in whatever
                                > relationship A has with B.

                                No, it only cares if B is actually using the land
                                or not.

                                Why do you always have to make $#!+ up about what
                                I have plainly written, Dan?

                                -- Roy Langston
                              • Dan Sullivan
                                Eric: When will that moderating committee be ready to go? -ds
                                Message 15 of 29 , Nov 18, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Eric:

                                  When will that moderating committee be ready to go?

                                  -ds

                                  On 19 Nov 2009 at 0:56, roy_langston1 wrote:

                                  > No, that is of course another fabrication on your
                                  > part.

                                  > Why do you always have to make $#!+ up about what
                                  > I have plainly written, Dan?
                                • roy_langston1
                                  ... Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye: Roy is so full of his own dishonest crap that he couldn t possibly see beyond it. Roy (and George
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Nov 20, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

                                    > When will that moderating committee be ready to go?

                                    Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye:

                                    "Roy is so full of his own dishonest crap that
                                    he couldn't possibly see beyond it."

                                    "Roy (and George Orwell's "thought police")"

                                    "I charitably assume that this is your goal."

                                    "Had you the courage to respond"

                                    "I think you would rather make cheap ad hominem
                                    accusations than deal with the issue" (!!! -- RL)

                                    "Roy's petulant denunciation"

                                    "That's the stupidest comment since "Why don't
                                    they eat cake?""

                                    "My, when you get intentionally dense you do go
                                    on so!"

                                    "Actually, the only person who clearly does not
                                    understand is you,"

                                    "Again, you are venting out of ignorance."

                                    "your desire to win arguments consistently trumps
                                    your desire to think with an open mind."

                                    "It is not beside the point at all, once you realize
                                    that the point is that Roy cannot be wrong."

                                    "You would understand it too, if you stopped arguing
                                    enough to actually think."

                                    "Because Roy can't admit he might be wrong.."

                                    "nobody need explain to anyone on this list, except
                                    maybe Roy."

                                    "Roy, there is no option to have a discussion with
                                    you that does not include silly nonsense."

                                    "If Roy had something cogent to say, he should have
                                    said it sooner."

                                    And that's just in the last week.

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