Re: The (over) Complicated Concept of Rent
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:> > A first go...> >> > Community activity creates economic> > growth. This is soaked into the land> > and crystallizes as land values.>> A big "Huh?" on that one.People have a big problem understanding where the increased value in the land came from. The above explains where it came from - usually you have to expand on it to infrastructure paid for by taxpayers. They think they made it by putting up a fence, conservatory and painting the house. Most cannot separate the land from the house and to them only developers and farmers deal in land, not thinking themselves as landowners.> > Geoism reclaims the community created> > value by issuing a levy on the value of> > the land to pay for its services which> > created the value in the land. Thereby> > not needing to impose income tax on> > individuals.>> Not terribly clear, IMO. But let us know what the focus> group says.That explains that LVT is taking back what the community created. And that they keep what they earn through their own work and effort.I am not saying it is perfectly written. But people need to know where the land value comes from and what LVT is doing.
No.3 usually the hook.
- Where the land value comes from
- Why is being reclaimed
- What is in it for them directly (no income tax)
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
> The point I made was that when fertility diminishesNo. In your paper, "The Complicated Concept of Rent,"
> so does Rent.
you made the following claim:
"Important to note is that using farmland removes
I quoted and refuted that claim in post #9488 on the
LandCafe website, the first post in this thread.
> You changed it to a completely different subject -You made the original claim that using farmland
> that farming doesn't necessarily reduce fertility.
removes fertility, not I. I simply corrected your
error. Correcting an error is not changing the
> This is the UseNet misdirection I mentioned.I do not see what Usenet has to do with the fact that
you made a false claim, I corrected you, and now you
are falsely accusing me of changing the subject.
> I pointed out there are tens of thousands of<sigh> And I identified the fact that farmers often
> fertilizer producers and sellers around the globe,
> the implication being that farmers apparently need
> to replace soil fertility to get the crops they want
> even though you seem to believe they significantly
use fertilizer to add fertility that was never there
in the first place.
> You used the example of soybeans as aNo, I used soybeans as an exampole of a crop that adds
> self-fertilizing crop - implication that it didn't
> need fertilizer. I sent you a piece from Wikipedia
> showing that soybeans do need fertilizer.
fertility rather than removing it. Whether soybeans
can benefit by fertilizer depending on what nutrients
the soil already has is completely beside the point.
> All this has nothing to do with my point that whenTrue, and I have already identified the fact that your
> soil fertility diminishes so does Ricardian Rent.
false claim constituted an extraneous premise.
> That's all. I fear you are waste of time.It's true that trying to rescue false claims after
I have refuted them is invariably a waste of time.
-- Roy Langston