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

RE: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion

Expand Messages
  • Bryan Kavanagh
    David, Regarding “passing on”: yes, tenants do pay the land rent because it’s usually there in their gross rent. But if the landlord receives the gross
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      David,

       

      Regarding “passing on”: yes, tenants do pay the land rent because it’s usually there in their gross rent. But if the landlord receives the gross rental from the tenant and pays the land rent to the government, he can’t then expect the tenant to refund him the land rent. If the lease specifies the tenant must pay the land rent to the government, it obviously becomes a deduction from the landlord’s gross rental – and any valuer assessing a market rental of the whole property would look at the terms of the lease and also make this adjustment. [ Tenants should take great care about signing, say, a 5 year lease with the requirement for automatic percentage rent increases, or, for paying “all increases in rates and land tax” without a reference such as the rental to be “no greater than gross market rental levels” at each annual review, lest the terms of the lease take the rental beyond market levels.

       

      Yes, the tenant will pay the land rent, one way or the other, but the landlord can’t recoup it.  “I’ll just pass it on” is often simply bravado, having no reference to market conditions. I remember a case in Swanston Street in the city the 1980s, where the landlord of a fish shop publicly bemoaned his land tax increases in the press, saying he’ll just be forced to pass it onto the tenant. Presumably he tried to do so, because I noticed the shop vacant shortly thereafter.

       

      -          BK

       

      From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dspain@...
      Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 5:15 AM
      To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion

       


      The difficulty persuading about SR is the extent of the concept & its ramifications (most minds
      can't wrap around it), and the loss of "private" land price.
      It is not accurate that SR won't be passed on to tenants. It will, and so it should be, as it is
      they who enjoy the location. Rent would equal SR + a fair return (say 5%) on the improvements. It
      should be noted, however, that in an SR society landlords could not abuse (screw, exploit) tenants
      or they will easily walk.

      As for changes of employment pattern when some bureaucracies & jobs (eg accountants) wither: let
      the market sort it out as government meddling just makes more mess.

      David Spain

      > Bryan,
      >  
      > Here seems to lie the whole problem. If the cost of government is covered by all taxes collected
      > no matter what they are and governments don't make a profit and if a land based tax would raise
      > the equivalent revenue necessary to run all the government structures, why is it so difficult to
      > prove that our philosophy would put more cash in the hands of the general populace and would thus
      > lead to a fairer share of the pie?
      >  
      > If the change means massive losses of government jobs because we don't need all the bureaucracies
      > etc, then there needs to be other means for these folks to earn a living and buy land, etc.   
      >  
      > How do we prove it to folks?  Clearly the land value has to include the natural resource
      > numbers.  Is this the case with your quoted numbers?
      >  
      > I guess my question is not the same as Albert Stuckey but rather it is to prove that it is worth
      > while to even bother to own land.  Renting a dwelling and paying zero tax appears to be a cheaper
      > option and hence frees up maximum cash to squander on a life of debauchery if you live in a less
      > developed area of our metropolis and enjoyment is your thing..
      >  
      > Thanks, James.
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
      > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012 10:21 PM
      > Subject: RE: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      > Yes, other natural resource rents (mineral, fishing, forestry, spectra, and aircraft slot
      > licences) and any retained ‘sin’ taxes would further reduce the rate in the dollar on surface
      > land prices, Karl.  But when Albert Stuckey (in the past), and in this instance, James, have put
      > this question to me, it’s been couched in terms of the simple question “What is the current
      > cost of government, and what is our total land values?” which is always more than a bit awkward.
      >  When I mentioned these other rents to Albert, he actually said, “No, forget those for the
      > moment, because we haven’t an accurate estimate of them”.  So, your reminder of these
      > additions is both welcome and correct.
      >  
      > So, as you can see, James, some of these imponderables, such as the extent of deadweight and other
      > natural resource rents makes the article you originally sought difficult to produce accurately at
      > this point. That’s the point Gavin keeps making, and with his help we may get nearer to the
      > answer.
      > -          BK
      > From:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karl Williams
      > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012 9:52 PM
      > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion
      > But it's not just the rent from the locational value of land that should be collected - it's all
      > the other natural resource charges plus sin taxes.
      > “To have a great aim and a cause, is this not happiness?  Is there not a joy that colder tamer
      > spirits never know?”
      > - John Mitchel (1815–75), Irish patriot
      >  
      > On 29/04/2012, at 11:43 AM, Bryan Kavanagh wrote:
      > That’s pretty easily done, James: taxation at all levels of government in 2010 was
      > $332,602,000,000; divided by 2010 total  site values $3,963,700,000,000 = 0.0839, or 8.4 cents in
      > the dollar.
      > However, that level of rate in the dollar would give ANBODY conniptions - even if all other taxes
      > WERE to be abolished.  So, let’s remember why we’re doing this.  It’s because of all the
      > deadweight in the current tax regime which reflects at least in 50% higher prices of goods and
      > services throughout the economy, including inefficient costly ATO admin, etc. That would
      > disappear, because you’re putting the revenue base back where (John Locke and many others have
      > said) it ought to have been in the first instance.  So, there’s no cascading effect of taxes
      > being passed on in prices throughout the economy. By eliminating this arbitrarily applied damaging
      > taxation, you’d be freeing up at least 30% of the economy lost to all this deadweight.  So,
      > you’d only need to apply a rate of, say, 70% of 8.4 cents in the dollar -  5.88 cents – at
      > most.  (Even that amount will strike some people as too high, but in the case of households with
      > more
      > than one wage earner, they need to remember that’s the total shared by each wage earner in the
      > household.)
      > And, of course, you’d rapidly start getting the required effect at a lesser rate, as the charge
      > begins to be applied in progressive increments.
      > -          BK
      > From:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of james mathieson
      > Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 8:59 AM
      > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion
      > Bryan,
      > Why don't we follow up this terrific article article with the simple story and chart showing
      > total land value in Australia, total cost of runni ng the current buraecracy and all its
      > associated costs and gifts and show that an x percent tax on owned land would cover all operating
      > costs of the country put more money disposable income into everyone's pocket.
      > Suggestions that our data is not current is not an acceptable excuse.  Go back to when we do have
      > complete and reliable data.  Your graph could even show that rising land prices reduces
      > individual taxes if country operating costs stayed relatively static. That can't happen of course
      > because we all want more money each year to cover inflation.  I suggest we put all that aside,
      > produce a chart, weave your wonderful words around it and wait for the "tweets" and bleats,
      > applause and praise and all those other accolades which will come for an outstanding solution to
      > world hunger.
      > If we can't show that, then we don't have anything other than an opinion.
      > Best regards, james.
      > From:Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
      > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 6:42 AM
      > Subject: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion
      > Feel free to "like" or "retweet" the article whose URL is given below,
      > folks.
      >
      > - BK
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
      > Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 6:18 AM
      > To: Bryan Kavanagh
      > Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion
      >
      > Dear Bryan,
      >
      > Your article has been posted to
      > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13548
      >
      > Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.
      >
      > Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
      > at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
      > it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
      > wider circulation.
      >
      > You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
      > Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Graham
      >
      > Graham Young
      > Chief Editor & Founder
      > On Line Opinion
      > www.onlineopinion.com.au
      > +61 7 3252 1470 W
      > +61 7 3252 9818 F
      > +61 4 1110 4801 M
      > On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
      > Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
      > from
      > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
      > Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
      > obligations.
      > By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
      > conditions.
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
      > Messages in this topic (4)
      > Recent Activity:
      > Visit Your Group
      > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
      > .
      >

    • Bryan Kavanagh
      They’re site values, David, bare land prices (with site works such as clearing or filling done more than 15 years ago deemed to have merged with the land). -
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        They’re site values, David, bare land prices (with site works such as clearing or filling done more than 15 years ago deemed to have merged with the land).

         

        - BK

         

        From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Spain
        Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 11:16 AM
        To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

         

         

        Hi BK:

         

        Thanks. But it is not clear from the Table, or from the scanty notes at head of the series, whether the “land” being valued is unimproved bare sites or with full improvements. Please enlighten us.

         

        DS

         

        From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Kavanagh
        Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 9:46 AM
        To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

         

         

        David, please refer to ABS Catalogue 5204.0, Table 61.  It does give a full break-up.

        -          BK

         

        From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Spain
        Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 9:26 AM
        To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

         

         

        Hi Bryan:

         

        I found the total tax take in ABS (2011 too) but could not find “total site values” at ABS or LVRG, except for the Dwyer estimates in 2003.

        n   Is there some independent assessment constituting your figure, or is this your own total?

        n   If so, what is the basis & breakdown for it and is in published?

        n  Does ABS (or anyone else do this work?

        n  Is 2010 the latest “sites total value” you have, not 2011?

        n  When you say “total sites values”, do you mean unimproved or improved?

        Regards,

        David Spain

         

        From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Kavanagh
        Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012 11:44 AM
        To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

         

         

        That’s pretty easily done, James: taxation at all levels of government in 2010 was $332,602,000,000; divided by 2010 total  site values $3,963,700,000,000 = 0.0839, or 8.4 cents in the dollar.

         

        However, that level of rate in the dollar would give ANBODY conniptions - even if all other taxes WERE to be abolished.  So, let’s remember why we’re doing this.  It’s because of all the deadweight in the current tax regime which reflects at least in 50% higher prices of goods and services throughout the economy, including inefficient costly ATO admin, etc. That would disappear, because you’re putting the revenue base back where (John Locke and many others have said) it ought to have been in the first instance.  So, there’s no cascading effect of taxes being passed on in prices throughout the economy. By eliminating this arbitrarily applied damaging taxation, you’d be freeing up at least 30% of the economy lost to all this deadweight.  So, you’d only need to apply a rate of, say, 70% of 8.4 cents in the dollar -  5.88 cents – at most.  (Even that amount will strike some people as too high, but in the case of households with more than one wage earner, they need to remember that’s the total shared by each wage earner in the household.)

         

        And, of course, you’d rapidly start getting the required effect at a lesser rate, as the charge begins to be applied in progressive increments.

         

        -          BK

         

        From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of james mathieson
        Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 8:59 AM
        To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

         

        Bryan,

         

        Why don't we follow up this terrific article article with the simple story and chart showing total land value in Australia, total cost of runni ng the current buraecracy and all its associated costs and gifts and show that an x percent tax on owned land would cover all operating costs of the country put more money disposable income into everyone's pocket.

         

        Suggestions that our data is not current is not an acceptable excuse.  Go back to when we do have complete and reliable data.  Your graph could even show that rising land prices reduces individual taxes if country operating costs stayed relatively static. That can't happen of course because we all want more money each year to cover inflation.  I suggest we put all that aside, produce a chart, weave your wonderful words around it and wait for the "tweets" and bleats, applause and praise and all those other accolades which will come for an outstanding solution to world hunger.

         

        If we can't show that, then we don't have anything other than an opinion.

         

        Best regards, james.

         

        From: Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
        To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 6:42 AM
        Subject: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

         

         

        Feel free to "like" or "retweet" the article whose URL is given below,
        folks.

        - BK

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
        Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 6:18 AM
        To: Bryan Kavanagh
        Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion

        Dear Bryan,

        Your article has been posted to
        http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13548

        Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.

        Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
        at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
        it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
        wider circulation.

        You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
        Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.

        Regards,
        Graham

        Graham Young
        Chief Editor & Founder
        On Line Opinion
        www.onlineopinion.com.au
        +61 7 3252 1470 W
        +61 7 3252 9818 F
        +61 4 1110 4801 M
        On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
        Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded from
        http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
        Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
        obligations.
        By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
        conditions.

         

      • David Spain
        If a full SR system came in next 30 June, or even a partial system, there would have to be legislative provisions that it be deemed NOT to constitute a tax or
        Message 3 of 20 , May 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          If a full SR system came in next 30 June, or even a partial system, there would have to be legislative provisions that it be deemed NOT to constitute a tax or charge payable by the tenant (under the usual current lease terms).

           

          DS

           

          From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Kavanagh
          Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 11:40 AM
          To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion

           

           

          David,

           

          Regarding “passing on”: yes, tenants do pay the land rent because it’s usually there in their gross rent. But if the landlord receives the gross rental from the tenant and pays the land rent to the government, he can’t then expect the tenant to refund him the land rent. If the lease specifies the tenant must pay the land rent to the government, it obviously becomes a deduction from the landlord’s gross rental – and any valuer assessing a market rental of the whole property would look at the terms of the lease and also make this adjustment. [ Tenants should take great care about signing, say, a 5 year lease with the requirement for automatic percentage rent increases, or, for paying “all increases in rates and land tax” without a reference such as the rental to be “no greater than gross market rental levels” at each annual review, lest the terms of the lease take the rental beyond market levels.

           

          Yes, the tenant will pay the land rent, one way or the other, but the landlord can’t recoup it.  “I’ll just pass it on” is often simply bravado, having no reference to market conditions. I remember a case in Swanston Street in the city the 1980s, where the landlord of a fish shop publicly bemoaned his land tax increases in the press, saying he’ll just be forced to pass it onto the tenant. Presumably he tried to do so, because I noticed the shop vacant shortly thereafter.

           

          -          BK

           

          From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dspain@...
          Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 5:15 AM
          To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion

           


          The difficulty persuading about SR is the extent of the concept & its ramifications (most minds
          can't wrap around it), and the loss of "private" land price.
          It is not accurate that SR won't be passed on to tenants. It will, and so it should be, as it is
          they who enjoy the location. Rent would equal SR + a fair return (say 5%) on the improvements. It
          should be noted, however, that in an SR society landlords could not abuse (screw, exploit) tenants
          or they will easily walk.

          As for changes of employment pattern when some bureaucracies & jobs (eg accountants) wither: let
          the market sort it out as government meddling just makes more mess.

          David Spain

          > Bryan,
          >  
          > Here seems to lie the whole problem. If the cost of government is covered by all taxes collected
          > no matter what they are and governments don't make a profit and if a land based tax would raise
          > the equivalent revenue necessary to run all the government structures, why is it so difficult to
          > prove that our philosophy would put more cash in the hands of the general populace and would thus
          > lead to a fairer share of the pie?
          >  
          > If the change means massive losses of government jobs because we don't need all the bureaucracies
          > etc, then there needs to be other means for these folks to earn a living and buy land, etc.   
          >  
          > How do we prove it to folks?  Clearly the land value has to include the natural resource
          > numbers.  Is this the case with your quoted numbers?
          >  
          > I guess my question is not the same as Albert Stuckey but rather it is to prove that it is worth
          > while to even bother to own land.  Renting a dwelling and paying zero tax appears to be a cheaper
          > option and hence frees up maximum cash to squander on a life of debauchery if you live in a less
          > developed area of our metropolis and enjoyment is your thing..
          >  
          > Thanks, James.
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
          > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012 10:21 PM
          > Subject: RE: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          > Yes, other natural resource rents (mineral, fishing, forestry, spectra, and aircraft slot
          > licences) and any retained ‘sin’ taxes would further reduce the rate in the dollar on surface
          > land prices, Karl.  But when Albert Stuckey (in the past), and in this instance, James, have put
          > this question to me, it’s been couched in terms of the simple question “What is the current
          > cost of government, and what is our total land values?” which is always more than a bit awkward.
          >  When I mentioned these other rents to Albert, he actually said, “No, forget those for the
          > moment, because we haven’t an accurate estimate of them”.  So, your reminder of these
          > additions is both welcome and correct.
          >  
          > So, as you can see, James, some of these imponderables, such as the extent of deadweight and other
          > natural resource rents makes the article you originally sought difficult to produce accurately at
          > this point. That’s the point Gavin keeps making, and with his help we may get nearer to the
          > answer.
          > -          BK
          > From:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karl Williams
          > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012 9:52 PM
          > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [ozgeo] Your article in On Line Opinion
          > But it's not just the rent from the locational value of land that should be collected - it's all
          > the other natural resource charges plus sin taxes.
          > “To have a great aim and a cause, is this not happiness?  Is there not a joy that colder tamer
          > spirits never know?”
          > - John Mitchel (1815–75), Irish patriot
          >  
          > On 29/04/2012, at 11:43 AM, Bryan Kavanagh wrote:
          > That’s pretty easily done, James: taxation at all levels of government in 2010 was
          > $332,602,000,000; divided by 2010 total  site values $3,963,700,000,000 = 0.0839, or 8.4 cents in
          > the dollar.
          > However, that level of rate in the dollar would give ANBODY conniptions - even if all other taxes
          > WERE to be abolished.  So, let’s remember why we’re doing this.  It’s because of all the
          > deadweight in the current tax regime which reflects at least in 50% higher prices of goods and
          > services throughout the economy, including inefficient costly ATO admin, etc. That would
          > disappear, because you’re putting the revenue base back where (John Locke and many others have
          > said) it ought to have been in the first instance.  So, there’s no cascading effect of taxes
          > being passed on in prices throughout the economy. By eliminating this arbitrarily applied damaging
          > taxation, you’d be freeing up at least 30% of the economy lost to all this deadweight.  So,
          > you’d only need to apply a rate of, say, 70% of 8.4 cents in the dollar -  5.88 cents – at
          > most.  (Even that amount will strike some people as too high, but in the case of households with
          > more
          > than one wage earner, they need to remember that’s the total shared by each wage earner in the
          > household.)
          > And, of course, you’d rapidly start getting the required effect at a lesser rate, as the charge
          > begins to be applied in progressive increments.
          > -          BK
          > From:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of james mathieson
          > Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 8:59 AM
          > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion
          > Bryan,
          > Why don't we follow up this terrific article article with the simple story and chart showing
          > total land value in Australia, total cost of runni ng the current buraecracy and all its
          > associated costs and gifts and show that an x percent tax on owned land would cover all operating
          > costs of the country put more money disposable income into everyone's pocket.
          > Suggestions that our data is not current is not an acceptable excuse.  Go back to when we do have
          > complete and reliable data.  Your graph could even show that rising land prices reduces
          > individual taxes if country operating costs stayed relatively static. That can't happen of course
          > because we all want more money each year to cover inflation.  I suggest we put all that aside,
          > produce a chart, weave your wonderful words around it and wait for the "tweets" and bleats,
          > applause and praise and all those other accolades which will come for an outstanding solution to
          > world hunger.
          > If we can't show that, then we don't have anything other than an opinion.
          > Best regards, james.
          > From:Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
          > To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 6:42 AM
          > Subject: [ozgeo] FW: Your article in On Line Opinion
          > Feel free to "like" or "retweet" the article whose URL is given below,
          > folks.
          >
          > - BK
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
          > Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 6:18 AM
          > To: Bryan Kavanagh
          > Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion
          >
          > Dear Bryan,
          >
          > Your article has been posted to
          > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13548
          >
          > Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.
          >
          > Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
          > at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
          > it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
          > wider circulation.
          >
          > You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
          > Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Graham
          >
          > Graham Young
          > Chief Editor & Founder
          > On Line Opinion
          > www.onlineopinion.com.au
          > +61 7 3252 1470 W
          > +61 7 3252 9818 F
          > +61 4 1110 4801 M
          > On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
          > Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
          > from
          > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
          > Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
          > obligations.
          > By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
          > conditions.
          > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
          > Messages in this topic (4)
          > Recent Activity:
          > Visit Your Group
          > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
          > .
          >

        • Gavin R. Putland
          ... !!!! The first sentence contradicts the third. If the landlord s SR bill were passed on to the tenant, then the tenant s rent bill would be TWICE SR,
          Message 4 of 20 , May 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Someone who should know better wrote:

            > It is not accurate that SR won't be passed on to tenants. It will, and so it should be, as it is
            > they who enjoy the location. Rent would equal SR + a fair return (say 5%) on the improvements.

            !!!!

            The first sentence contradicts the third. If the landlord's SR bill
            were "passed on" to the tenant, then the tenant's rent bill would be
            TWICE SR, plus the return on the improvements.

            He really does know better, doesn't he? He merely flubbed his lines, didn't he?

            Wide-eyed with amazement,
            Gav.
          • Bryan Kavanagh
            Feel free to Google +1 , Facebook like or retweet the article folks, especially since it has relevance to Connect East boss Denis Cliche s idea yesterday
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 25 3:48 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Feel free to "Google +1", "Facebook like" or "retweet" the article folks,
              especially since it has relevance to Connect East boss Denis Cliche's idea
              yesterday to privatise the whole of Eastlink in order to pay for the
              proposed Eastlink to Western Ring Road tunnel.

              Cheers,

              - BK

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:32 AM
              To: Bryan Kavanagh
              Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion

              Dear Bryan,

              Your article has been posted to
              http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14843
              Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.

              Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
              at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
              it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
              wider circulation.

              You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
              Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.

              Regards,
              Graham

              Graham Young
              Chief Editor & Founder
              On Line Opinion
              www.onlineopinion.com.au
              +61 7 3252 1470 W
              +61 7 3252 9818 F
              +61 4 1110 4801 M
              On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
              Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded from
              http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
              Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
              obligations.
              By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
              conditions.
            • dcollyernet
              Top stuff, Bryan! Repopsted on prosper.org.au: http://www.prosper.org.au/1r9 DC
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 25 6:25 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Top stuff, Bryan!

                Repopsted on prosper.org.au: http://www.prosper.org.au/1r9

                DC

                --- In ozgeo@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Kavanagh" <bryan@...> wrote:
                >
                > Feel free to "Google +1", "Facebook like" or "retweet" the article folks,
                > especially since it has relevance to Connect East boss Denis Cliche's idea
                > yesterday to privatise the whole of Eastlink in order to pay for the
                > proposed Eastlink to Western Ring Road tunnel.
                >
                > Cheers,
                >
                > - BK
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
                > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:32 AM
                > To: Bryan Kavanagh
                > Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion
                >
                > Dear Bryan,
                >
                > Your article has been posted to
                > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14843
                > Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.
                >
                > Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
                > at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
                > it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
                > wider circulation.
                >
                > You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
                > Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Graham
                >
                > Graham Young
                > Chief Editor & Founder
                > On Line Opinion
                > www.onlineopinion.com.au
                > +61 7 3252 1470 W
                > +61 7 3252 9818 F
                > +61 4 1110 4801 M
                > On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
                > Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded from
                > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
                > Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
                > obligations.
                > By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
                > conditions.
                >
              • Bryan Kavanagh
                Indeed .... and edited! :-) - BK From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dcollyernet Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 25 6:41 PM
                • 0 Attachment

                  Indeed .... and edited!   J

                   

                  -          BK

                   

                  From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dcollyernet
                  Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:25 PM
                  To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [ozgeo] Re: FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

                   

                   

                  Top stuff, Bryan!

                  Repopsted on prosper.org.au: http://www.prosper.org.au/1r9

                  DC

                  --- In ozgeo@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Kavanagh" <bryan@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Feel free to "Google +1", "Facebook like" or "retweet" the article folks,
                  > especially since it has relevance to Connect East boss Denis Cliche's idea
                  > yesterday to privatise the whole of Eastlink in order to pay for the
                  > proposed Eastlink to Western Ring Road tunnel.
                  >
                  > Cheers,
                  >
                  > - BK
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
                  > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:32 AM
                  > To: Bryan Kavanagh
                  > Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion
                  >
                  > Dear Bryan,
                  >
                  > Your article has been posted to
                  > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14843
                  > Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.
                  >
                  > Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
                  > at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
                  > it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
                  > wider circulation.
                  >
                  > You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
                  > Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > Graham
                  >
                  > Graham Young
                  > Chief Editor & Founder
                  > On Line Opinion
                  > www.onlineopinion.com.au
                  > +61 7 3252 1470 W
                  > +61 7 3252 9818 F
                  > +61 4 1110 4801 M
                  > On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
                  > Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded from
                  > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
                  > Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
                  > obligations.
                  > By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
                  > conditions.
                  >

                • David Collyer
                  Bryan, Have I edited or abridged you when I repopsted ?  I can t see it.  Tell me. DC ________________________________ From: Bryan Kavanagh
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 25 7:21 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bryan,

                    Have I edited or abridged you when I 'repopsted'?  I can't see it.  Tell me.

                    DC


                    From: Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
                    To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:41 PM
                    Subject: RE: [ozgeo] Re: FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

                     
                    Indeed .... and edited!   J
                     
                    -          BK
                     
                    From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dcollyernet
                    Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:25 PM
                    To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [ozgeo] Re: FW: Your article in On Line Opinion
                     
                     
                    Top stuff, Bryan!

                    Repopsted on prosper.org.au: http://www.prosper.org.au/1r9

                    DC

                    --- In ozgeo@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Kavanagh" <bryan@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Feel free to "Google +1", "Facebook like" or "retweet" the article folks,
                    > especially since it has relevance to Connect East boss Denis Cliche's idea
                    > yesterday to privatise the whole of Eastlink in order to pay for the
                    > proposed Eastlink to Western Ring Road tunnel.
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > - BK
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
                    > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:32 AM
                    > To: Bryan Kavanagh
                    > Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion
                    >
                    > Dear Bryan,
                    >
                    > Your article has been posted to
                    > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14843
                    > Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.
                    >
                    > Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
                    > at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
                    > it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
                    > wider circulation.
                    >
                    > You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
                    > Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Graham
                    >
                    > Graham Young
                    > Chief Editor & Founder
                    > On Line Opinion
                    > www.onlineopinion.com.au
                    > +61 7 3252 1470 W
                    > +61 7 3252 9818 F
                    > +61 4 1110 4801 M
                    > On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
                    > Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded from
                    > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
                    > Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
                    > obligations.
                    > By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
                    > conditions.
                    >


                  • Bryan Kavanagh
                    I put what I thought was a strong ending sentence--an allusion to your “Don’t Buy Now” campaign--but I see another couple of paras now appear below it.
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 25 8:06 PM
                    • 0 Attachment

                      I put what I thought was a strong ending sentence--an allusion to your “Don’t Buy Now” campaign--but I see another couple of paras now appear below it.

                      So it wasn’t an edit then, David (with which  I would have been OK) ... but an error!   Oh dear!  J

                       

                      Did you see the comment about your accompanying photo, David?

                       

                      -          BK

                       

                      From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Collyer
                      Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 1:21 PM
                      To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [ozgeo] Re: FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

                       

                       

                      Bryan,

                       

                      Have I edited or abridged you when I 'repopsted'?  I can't see it.  Tell me.

                       

                      DC

                       


                      From: Bryan Kavanagh <bryan@...>
                      To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:41 PM
                      Subject: RE: [ozgeo] Re: FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

                       

                       

                      Indeed .... and edited!   J

                       

                      -          BK

                       

                      From: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ozgeo@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dcollyernet
                      Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:25 PM
                      To: ozgeo@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [ozgeo] Re: FW: Your article in On Line Opinion

                       

                       

                      Top stuff, Bryan!

                      Repopsted on prosper.org.au: http://www.prosper.org.au/1r9

                      DC

                      --- In ozgeo@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Kavanagh" <bryan@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Feel free to "Google +1", "Facebook like" or "retweet" the article folks,
                      > especially since it has relevance to Connect East boss Denis Cliche's idea
                      > yesterday to privatise the whole of Eastlink in order to pay for the
                      > proposed Eastlink to Western Ring Road tunnel.
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      >
                      > - BK
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Graham Young [mailto:editor@...]
                      > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:32 AM
                      > To: Bryan Kavanagh
                      > Subject: Your article in On Line Opinion
                      >
                      > Dear Bryan,
                      >
                      > Your article has been posted to
                      > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14843
                      > Please let me know if you spot any errors or would like to add any links.
                      >
                      > Can I also suggest you "retweet" and "like" your article using the buttons
                      > at the top or the bottom to ensure that your circle of friends knows about
                      > it? Hopefully they will also like and retweet your article giving it even
                      > wider circulation.
                      >
                      > You should also use the new +1 button at the top of the page. This is a new
                      > Google feature which will help with your search engine rating.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Graham
                      >
                      > Graham Young
                      > Chief Editor & Founder
                      > On Line Opinion
                      > www.onlineopinion.com.au
                      > +61 7 3252 1470 W
                      > +61 7 3252 9818 F
                      > +61 4 1110 4801 M
                      > On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what's best for
                      > Australia's future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded from
                      > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors
                      > Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
                      > obligations.
                      > By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
                      > conditions.
                      >

                       

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