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

Respecting subject continuity for our postings

Expand Messages
  • Eric Britton
    Dear Friends, We are doing a much better job with this now – see below. And again, the idea is to make it easier to use our collective communications as a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2010
      The Value Capture/Land Tax  Idea Factory

      Dear Friends,

       

      We are doing a much better job with this now – see below. And again, the idea is to make it easier to use our collective communications as a convenient, accessible shared information resource.

       

      Thanks,

       

      Eric

       

      PS. Have a look at World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org. Like just about everything we do that involves public policy or investment of public money there is always Value Capture right behind it. (But that's OK. Almost no one ever mentions it or indeed even thinks about it. OK?)

       

      Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org  | Paris  | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility 

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Tuesday, 01 June, 2010 13:15
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Digest Number 1687

       

      Messages In This Digest (21 Messages)

      1.

      Land Values & Infrastructure From: John

      2a.

      Re: reality report From: Harry Pollard

      2b.

      Re: reality report From: John

      3a.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"? From: roy_langston1

      3b.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"? From: roy_langston1

      3c.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"? From: Wyn Achenbaum

      3d.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"? From: Harry Pollard

      3e.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"? From: John

      4.1.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: roy_langston1

      4.2.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: Harry Pollard

      4.3.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: roy_langston1

      4.4.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: Harry Pollard

      4.5.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: Harry Pollard

      4.6.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: roy_langston1

      4.7.

      Re: Motto / definition "Neither left nor right" From: Harry Pollard

      5a.

      Re: stv From: Harry Pollard

      5b.

      Re: stv From: roy_langston1

      5c.

      Re: stv From: walto

      6.1.

      Re: Geoist Motto? From: roy_langston1

      6.2.

      Re: Geoist Motto? From: walto

      7.

      Funding Infrastructure From: John

      Messages

      1.

      Land Values & Infrastructure

      Posted by: "John" burns-john@...   burns_curtis

      Mon May 31, 2010 4:20 am (PDT)



      In ye very olden dayes,
      * A landowner rarely made windfalls on land created by the
      infrastructure paid for by the community.
      * The windfalls were mainly because of the communities activities,
      not the landowners.
      It could be said raised land values in selling off land were not the
      prime form of income from land, just the charging of rent on the land.
      Few owned property in Ye Olden Dayes.
      Since the industrial revolution:
      * Taxpayers have increased the infrastructure of communities
      exponentially.
      * Taxpayers money in infrastructure does make a highly significant
      impact on land values.
      * The community needs to reclaim its money to pay for the
      infrastructure it provided.
      The real big licks in land came once the Industrial Revolution took off
      with the buildings of canals which ran only through aristocrat's lands.
      They were clever enough to realize the increased land values the canals
      created. The accounting system at the time hide the real profits which
      was from the values that soaked into the land.
      Later came railways. These went over many people's land. The large
      landowners would get loans, build the railways, and sell off the
      railways leaving them in debt because of the high capital cost - the
      railways made operating profits but not enough to pay for the initial
      capital to construct. They promoted them as cash cows to small
      investors, hiding some accounts, who lost their shirts. Who then
      wondered why this highly popular technological marvel, the train, could
      not make money.
      The landowners walked off with no debt, but the real prize was the
      windfall profits on the increased values of the land the steel track ran
      through. They increased rents as the economy rose - market forces they
      said it was. The more money people made the more they put up rents. The
      railways brought massive economic growth which they milked via the
      values that soaked into the land.
      A railway in Shropshire, the Bishops Castle Railway, ran for 70 years
      under the administrators - it created economic growth along its length,
      yet only drew even in running costs, so was kept running. Land values
      increased along its length with the landowner creaming off land value
      windfalls. The administrators were called in as the initial capital
      debts to construct could not be paid.
      The railways were bound to collapse and fall into public hands. Private
      profit and socialized debts. In the USA the railways mainly just
      collapsed and private road vehicles took over as small diesel engines
      were now feasible for road vehicles. In the UK the railways were vital
      to the country and had to be run by the government. Like with the
      Credit Crunch, governments had to step in to save the banks because they
      were vital to the countries.
      Thatcher came along and said the railways and coal mines (most output
      went to power stations) were not making a profit. She did not have the
      intelligence to see that they were creating economic growth. The massive
      gap in the governments 18th century accounting system did not detect the
      money leaking away via a massive sluice, the land market, as landowners
      creamed it off.
      Thatcher decided to privatize the railways and close down the coal mines
      exhausting the North Sea gas supplies to create electricity, which is
      why energy prices are now through the roof. In her simple brain they
      were not making money. Railtrack was created to run the tracks with
      other companies running train services on top of them. Naturally it
      collapsed and 250,000 small investors, encouraged by Thatcher with high
      publicity to buy shares, lost all. A repeat of the 19th century rail
      financial fiascoes. Tony Blair replaced it with Network Rail a
      non-profit making company.
      The government still provides the money to upgrade the rail
      infrastructure. The New electrification projects and the new High Speed
      Rail which will have a brand new track.
      The London Underground does not make money in ticket sale revenues. No
      underground rapid-transit rail system in the world does. Imagine what
      would happen if it was all closed down tomorrow. Land and house values
      would plummet, travelling around would be a nightmare, people would
      leave London, the city would die quickly and reach the size of
      Birmingham - the biggest you could get a city without a rapid-transit
      transport.
      Rail should stay in public hands to keep them away from private sharks,
      using LVT to fund it.

      2a.

      Re: reality report

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

      Mon May 31, 2010 10:08 am (PDT)



      John,

      A student of mine in Toronto, Art Adamthwaite, came to class livid.

      He was home when the assessor called and they went into the basement. The
      assessor made a notation. Art asked him why. "You have two faucets down
      here," said the assessor. The extra faucet increases your property tax.

      Such nonsense passeth all understanding.

      Harry

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of John
      Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:13 AM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: reality report

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <nysa71@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > John: One thing that is clear is that the owner/occupier will not
      > entertain it. They think they have the almighty right to keep the
      > windfall gains in the value of their land.
      >
      > Dan: Our experience has been that people do not analyze it that deeply.
      > If it costs them less than the tax it replaces, they will prefer it.
      >
      > Jason: When I talk to people about LVT, I try to frame it in a simple,
      > concrete way. What I'll usually say is that when a government taxes
      > buildings and improvements, then what happens is that if the property
      > owner improves their property, the market value for the property goes
      > up, and thus the property tax goes up. Thus, the property owner is
      > effectively punished for being productive. But if a government only
      > taxed the land based on its size and location, then this would not be an
      > issue.

      Jason, a good approach indeed. In the UK many people build conservatories
      (sunspaces in the USA) on the rear of their houses and are irritated when
      they have to pay more Council Tax. Council Tax is a mixture land and the
      bricks - the total value.

      The thought of paying more Council Tax installing a two floor sunspace on
      the rear of my sister's house has put brother-in-law off. Their quality of
      life would have been greatly improved building this large conservatory and
      it would have acted as a layer of insulation in winter, and a solar gain
      generator as well, keeping energy bills down.

      Taxing the bricks in any way is a daft as the window tax. Using the silly
      old Window Tax as an analogy is one way to emphasis a point here.

      > People get that. It's just common sense. And the response is usually
      > positive. (Though I often get the all-to-predictable sarcastic response
      > like, "Well that'll never happen because politicians would actually
      have
      > to have some common sense in order to do that!"...or something to
      that
      > effect.)

      That is usually my experience. It is when they have bought the idea but the
      sceptical side of them comes out. No faith in common sense or system. When
      going into LVT in more depth many think it is some form on Communism as you
      taking from rich people - Cold War propaganda has etched this into people's
      minds that the rich must remain rich. I even explain all would actually
      benefit as there is no income tax and that it is a more capitalist system
      than what we have now. :)
      <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif>

      > I'll even hear anecdotes from time-to-time. For example, one
      > woman told me how her grandfather refuses to fix his barn that's tipping
      > sideways just so he can keep his property taxes low.

      Which is even a good case of, tax values of land only.

      This is a good thread. It is no good having a superb system if you can't
      sell to those who would benefit most. It is the approach and
      counter-responses that matter. Dan's contribution is priceless. He has been
      there and got the T shirts.

      There are two approaches:

      1. To the politicians.
      2. To the grass routes people on the ground.

      Both are equally as important. Many politicos just do not understand LVT in
      all its versions.

      I try and make matters easy. Talking in high-brow ways,and using big words,
      turns people off. Most people see the world simply. I look at it from the
      angle of how land affects them directly - most think it doesn't affect them.
      I wrote this page from that angle and put in LVT in one of the solutions,
      which is heavily weighted to LVT. I will rewrite part of now.

      How Land Affects the Average Person
      <http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html>

      2b.

      Re: reality report

      Posted by: "John" burns-john@...   burns_curtis

      Mon May 31, 2010 10:47 am (PDT)



      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...>
      wrote:

      >
      > John,
      >
      > A student of mine in Toronto, Art Adamthwaite, came to class livid.
      >
      > He was home when the assessor called and they went into the basement.
      The
      > assessor made a notation. Art asked him why. "You have two faucets
      down
      > here," said the assessor. The extra faucet increases your property
      tax.
      >
      > Such nonsense passeth all understanding.

      Harry, it make it much easier eliminating this garbage in a tax system
      with LVT. That opens their eyes then. Elimination of this garbage
      promotes LVT - but it has to be presented properly. In a way they can
      understand, grasp and go with.

      3a.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"?

      Posted by: "roy_langston1" roy_langston1@...   roy_langston1

      Mon May 31, 2010 11:12 am (PDT)



      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
      wrote:

      > The vested interests in the Tory landowners in
      > rejecting LVT is misplaced according to Henry George,
      > as all will benefit.

      How will the top 1% of landowners benefit?

      The privileged accurately perceive that justice means
      they lose their privileges. That is why they oppose
      justice. If the equal rights of all to use land are
      restored, landowners will lose their power to rob the
      landless of the fruits of their labor. Perhaps even
      more importantly, they will lose their status as lords
      over the common people who must serve them. I do not
      believe it makes sense to pretend otherwise, nor do I
      believe that any tactical gains obtained by doing so
      will endure. We need to appeal to the 95%, 98% or 99%
      who will gain more than they lose.

      -- Roy Langston

      3b.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"?

      Posted by: "roy_langston1" roy_langston1@...   roy_langston1

      Mon May 31, 2010 11:48 am (PDT)



      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...>
      wrote:

      > We seem to be sleepwalking into describing ourselves as
      > Geoists.Why?

      Some of us are sick of being dismissed as the Henry
      George Fan Club. Marxism did not exist before Marx, and
      would likely never have existed without him, so it is
      appropriate to call it "Marxism." By contrast, land rent
      recovery existed before Henry George, and would definitely
      exist even if he never had, so it is NOT appropriate to
      call it "Georgism."

      > It is an ugly neologism,that does n't explain itself at
      > first sight (which is pretty vital)

      If you (or anyone here) can think of a more attractive,
      accurate and self-explanatory term, please let us know
      what it is.

      > and on first hearing sounds "New Age",than which
      > nothing is more dated and soppy.

      I don't get that feeling, but what do others here think?

      > I cannot see why we can't just call ourselves land
      > taxers and then indicate shades of allegiance by
      > prefixed political inclinations as in GB: Socialist
      > land taxer (e.g. Labour Land Campaign/ not much doubt
      > what that's about) ;Liberal land taxers (in ALTER);
      > UKIP land taxers (about two though highly vocal) and
      > the very rare Conservative land taxer (not plural).

      Maybe that's the way to go. But IMO it preserves a
      destructive political fragmentation that we should be
      seeking any possible means to overcome.

      > If you want to be logical (always leads to arguments)
      > you would have to use the umbrella-term Socialism .

      Socialism already has a definition, and it's not what
      we (or at least I) propose.

      > We all mean to socialise the profits of the land
      > market, take them into public ownership and
      > redistribute them. Can't see the problem .

      Socialism proposes to socialize the privately created
      value of capital, too. I have seen LVT described as
      "land socialism," and I can't say it sounded very
      appealing, or even accurate, as it seems to imply
      socialization of land use, not just land rent.

      -- Roy Langston

      3c.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"?

      Posted by: "Wyn Achenbaum" wyn@...   lvtfan

      Mon May 31, 2010 12:09 pm (PDT)



      I like "Natural Public Revenue" .... maybe we're NaPpeRs or
      NaPuRe lovers, or simply Revenuers.

      "Natural Public Revenue" might ring well with those in the US who
      are used to hearing "national public radio" and therefore rather
      poorly with those whose taste runs to Fox News.

      "NPR" would extend over land and natural resources and all the
      other sources of revenue.

      "Public" gets us away from "socialize."


      On 5/31/2010 2:45 PM, roy_langston1 wrote:
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> , David Reed <dbcreed@...>
      <mailto:dbcreed@...>
      wrote:

      > We seem to be sleepwalking into describing ourselves as
      > Geoists.Why?

      Some of us are sick of being dismissed as the Henry
      George Fan Club. Marxism did not exist before Marx, and
      would likely never have existed without him, so it is
      appropriate to call it "Marxism." By contrast, land rent
      recovery existed before Henry George, and would definitely
      exist even if he never had, so it is NOT appropriate to
      call it "Georgism."

      > It is an ugly neologism,that does n't explain itself at
      > first sight (which is pretty vital)

      If you (or anyone here) can think of a more attractive,
      accurate and self-explanatory term, please let us know
      what it is.

      > and on first hearing sounds "New Age",than which
      > nothing is more dated and soppy.

      I don't get that feeling, but what do others here think?

      > I cannot see why we can't just call ourselves land
      > taxers and then indicate shades of allegiance by
      > prefixed political inclinations as in GB: Socialist
      > land taxer (e.g. Labour Land Campaign/ not much doubt
      > what that's about) ;Liberal land taxers (in ALTER);
      > UKIP land taxers (about two though highly vocal) and
      > the very rare Conservative land taxer (not plural).

      Maybe that's the way to go. But IMO it preserves a
      destructive political fragmentation that we should be
      seeking any possible means to overcome.

      > If you want to be logical (always leads to arguments)
      > you would have to use the umbrella-term Socialism .

      Socialism already has a definition, and it's not what
      we (or at least I) propose.

      > We all mean to socialise the profits of the land
      > market, take them into public ownership and
      > redistribute them. Can't see the problem .

      Socialism proposes to socialize the privately created
      value of capital, too. I have seen LVT described as
      "land socialism," and I can't say it sounded very
      appealing, or even accurate, as it seems to imply
      socialization of land use, not just land rent.

      -- Roy Langston

      3d.

      Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"?

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

      Mon May 31, 2010 10:54 pm (PDT)



      Looks good to me.

      Harry

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Wyn Achenbaum
      Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:09 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"?

      I like "Natural Public Revenue" .... maybe we're NaPpeRs or NaPuRe lovers,
      or simply Revenuers.

      "Natural Public Revenue" might ring well with those in the US who are used
      to hearing "national public radio" and therefore rather poorly with those
      whose taste runs to Fox News.

      "NPR" would extend over land and natural resources and all the other sources
      of revenue.

      "Public" gets us away from "socialize."

      On 5/31/2010 2:45 PM, roy_langston1 wrote:

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> , David
      Reed <mailto:dbcreed@...> <dbcreed@...>
      wrote:

      > We seem to be sleepwalking into describing ourselves as
      > Geoists.Why?

      Some of us are sick of being dismissed as the Henry
      George Fan Club. Marxism did not exist before Marx, and
      would likely never have existed without him, so it is
      appropriate to call it "Marxism." By contrast, land rent
      recovery existed before Henry George, and would definitely
      exist even if he never had, so it is NOT appropriate to
      call it "Georgism."

      > It is an ugly neologism,that does n't explain itself at
      > first sight (which is pretty vital)

      If you (or anyone here) can think of a more attractive,
      accurate and self-explanatory term, please let us know
      what it is.

      > and on first hearing sounds "New Age",than which
      > nothing is more dated and soppy.

      I don't get that feeling, but what do others here think?

      > I cannot see why we can't just call ourselves land
      > taxers and then indicate shades of allegiance by
      > prefixed political inclinations as in GB: Socialist
      > land taxer (e.g. Labour Land Campaign/ not much doubt
      > what that's about) ;Liberal land taxers (in ALTER);
      > UKIP land taxers (about two though highly vocal) and
      > the very rare Conservative land taxer (not plural).

      Maybe that's the way to go. But IMO it preserves a
      destructive political fragmentation that we should be
      seeking any possible means to overcome.

      > If you want to be logical (always leads to arguments)
      > you would have to use the umbrella-term Socialism .

      Socialism already has a definition, and it's not what
      we (or at least I) propose.

      > We all mean to socialise the profits of the land
      > market, take them into public ownership and
      > redistribute them. Can't see th

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

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