Re: Distribution & Redistribution

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:01:56 GMT

On 19 Nov 2004 07:43:16 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<419d1b8a.20193620@news.telus.net>...
>> On 16 Nov 2004 14:12:42 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<419940b9.24378253@news.telus.net>...
>> >> On 15 Nov 2004 09:43:06 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >However,
>> >> >given the fact that there do exist individuals who may be land rich
>> >> >but money poor, what provision would you make for delaying collection
>> >> >of land taxes until transfer of title or deed, as opposed to
>> >> >collection of taxes on a yearly basis?
>> >>
>> >> If they don't want to pay the taxes, they can relinquish the land.
>> >> Simple.
>> >
>> >Even though they had legally acquired title to the land and are
>> >currently paying all local property taxes?
>>
>> The land tax is precisely what they aren't paying.
>
>What you seem to be positing is a fundamental change in the
>relationship between property owners and the government.

Correct in one sense, not in another.

>Property
>owners currently do pay property taxes Mr. Roy, though you do not seem
>to recognize this fact.

Another false assumption. I recognize it just fine.

>I am a property owner, if I don't pay taxes on
>my land I will eventually be evicted.

Right. And if the property tax were increased, or the basis of its
calculation amended, "paying the taxes" would mean paying the new
amount, not the old.

>> I don't see any compelling reason to sabotage that process for the
>> unearned benefit of idle current landowners.
>
>I'm just familiar with the system I live under in the USA. As a
>property owner I already pay property taxes, and so do the current
>landowners you catagorize as "idle".

In economics, the landowner qua landowner is idle by definition.

>If they pay their taxes they
>aren't being "idle",

Yes, they are.

>but if they are through the circumstances of
>their lives in a situation where they have legally acquired land then
>mere failure to pay property taxes is not cause to me for immediate
>eviction.

Of course not, any more than failure of a tenant to pay a private
landlord the rent on the first of the month is cause for immediate
eviction.

I would envision a public rent recovery system something like this: a
new tenant would pay the newly assessed (or high bid) land rent for a
year in advance, and this payment would automatically purchase an
option to maintain possession at the same rent (indexed to GDP) for
five years. A new five-year option would be available to the tenant
at the beginning of any of the next four years on condition that the
rent was re-assessed or rebid at open auction. If a tenant in
possession failed to pay the rent at the beginning of the next year,
they would have a one-year grace period to pay. If at the end of that
year they still had not paid the land rent, their renewal option would
be voided, new tenants would be sought, and eviction proceedings would
begin. The date of physical eviction would depend on when the new
tenant's tenure was to begin.

>The government can afford to wait until the individual
>passes away and tax the land at time of title transfer.

No, it can't. Recovering close to all the land rent would reduce the
land's transfer value to an amount comparable to or even smaller than
the annual rent.

>> >What matter if the government should wait for that
>> >individual to live their natural lives so long as the land title is
>> >taxed for whatever amount assessed at the eventual time of sale?
>>
>> The foregone potential production from that land is gone forever.
>
>The biggest loss is to the individual who refused to use the value of
>their land to make themselves as rich as possible, but some people do
>not value riches more than the land they live on.

Then they should live on land more suited to their needs and means.

>Who are you to
>declare they need pay you "potential production" Mr. Roy?

Hmmm. Why do you feel this intense, almost sexual need to lie about
what I have clearly written?

Either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I propose
that land rent should be paid to me personally, or admit that you are
despicable, lying filth.

I'm waiting.

>> >> >I for one could not in good
>> >> >conscious evict someone from land they legally owned for the sole
>> >> >reason of their failure to pay property taxes,
>> >>
>> >> Could you in good conscience evict a tenant for the sole reason of
>> >> their failure to pay rent?
>> >
>> >It may depend on circumstances, I can imagine scenarios in which I
>> >would voluntarilly take on responsibility to help pay for a tenants
>> >rent, but I don't think a tenant is entitled to free rent.
>>
>> Is a land "owner" entitled to free rent?
>
>Hey Mr. Roy, are you not listening? I already pay property taxes, so
>I am not arguing for free rent.

Property taxes are a fraction -- usually a small one -- of the land
rent.

>If you can't get past this strawman
>you create then I can't make any sort of reasoned argument to you.

Do you think a tenant of a private landowner is not getting "free
rent" if he only pays 1/10 of the rent the landlord could get from
another tenant?

>> The rent of land is created by government and the community, not the
>> owner.
>
>The value of the land is created by individuals, period.

Well, as government and the community both consist of individuals, I
suppose you are right. The main point is that the _owner_ of a parcel
of land does _not_ create any more of its value than any average
person in the community who is doing similar things. Qua landowner,
he creates none of it.

>Individuals
>can legally own land in the USA, I'm one of them. I pay property
>taxes, so I do not rent my land.

Effectively, you do, but for a small fraction of the market rent. The
difference, you simply pocket.

>> Why should he get to pocket it?
>
>Why should I get to pocket what Mr. Roy?

The publicly created rent of the land you own.

>What is it that you want from
>me, a property owner who pays property taxes on my land?

I want you to pay the community the full value of the benefits you are
getting from it.

>How much of
>my money do you want?

I want you to pay the economic rent of your land to the government and
community that create it. I'm not sure why you feel you have to lie
about what I have written, and claim that I want you to pay it to me
personally.

>> > At least not on private property.
>>
>> What makes land private property?
>
>The fact that the county government I live in gives me a deed or title
>to the land makes it my private property Mr. Roy.

Correct. It is a grant of privilege by government. Very good. You
win a cookie. You can download it from www.henrygeorge.org.

>> >If the government wants to let people live
>> >free on government land, well that's a different issue.
>>
>> Sure, _if_ it wants to.
>
>So try and get a people to vote for a government to give away land for
>people to live on. Oh wait, there already are such places in the USA,
>nevermind.
>
>http://www.usgovernmentinformation.com/land_62.html
>
>If you want free land Mr. Roy, well here's your chance.

I want free _people_, not free land.

>> >> I certainly could, and likewise a deadbeat landholder.
>> >
>> >Imagine a scenario where an elderly person lives on land they own and
>> >has enough cash to eat and survive, but no other assets than the
>> >property they own and live on.
>>
>> <sigh> I knew it was only a matter of time before the poor old widows
>> would show up....
>
>Thus my claim that a just government can afford to wait out
>individuals in order to collect taxes from transfer of land titles.

Just as private landlords can afford to wait out tenants who don't pay
their rent in order to collect more damage deposits when they
ultimately die or decide to move out...?

>> >Why can't the government simply wait
>> >until such a person dies of old age than to demand payment of a
>> >property tax which they cannot pay?
>>
>> To let others who can better use the land use it.
>
>Who gets to decide what the better use is Mr. Roy?

The market.

>You?

Why do you want this to be about me personally rather than the subject
of the discussion? Are you not aware of the fallacy called "ad
hominem"?

>The land will
>be put to better use eventually, why are you in such a hurry to evict
>the current owner?

Because meanwhile he and swarms of others like him are impoverishing
the community by preventing others from contributing as much as they
could (and would) to its wealth.

>Just because they were foolish enough to let
>themselves become old and poor?

Oh, don't worry, those poor old landowners are not nearly as foolish
as all those who allowed themselves to become old and poor _without_
having acquired land....

>Or are you honestly thinking I mean to
>let rich people keep land without paying taxes?

I suppose that would be your intent, as long as you got to be one of
them.

>> And why can't private landowners forego the rent of elderly tenants
>> who can't afford it?
>
>They can, and I have little doubt that some do so,

But unlike government, you would not _require_ them to, is that it?

>especially in the case of family memebers.

Those are hardly tenants in the normal sense.

>> Do you think only the elderly who own land ever experience financial
>> constraints on their preferred lifestyles?
>
>I don't understand your "preferred lifestyles".

Living on land that others could use more productively.

>I am explicitly
>talking about people, who for whatever reason, find themselves unable
>to do productive work and gain income.

But you only evince any concern for the welfare of such people if they
also happen to own land. Why?

>If they were wise enough or
>lucky enough to have a bought and paid for place to live, and had a
>past history of paying property taxes, then I could imagine scenarios
>in which they could come to live on their own land, in their own
>house, and be so irrational that they choose to give up all their
>cash, possessions, and wealth to retain that land until they die.

Yes, well, people buy lottery tickets, too....

>> If I'm going to think about elderly people who may be experiencing
>> financial hardships, the ones who own land they aren't using
>> productively are going to be pretty far down the priority list.
>
>If they own property not associated with where they live then I am not
>arguing that they be allowed to keep that. I am explicitly talking
>about owning land and property on which they live. Not multiple
>houses, lands, whatever, just that one place they don't want to leave
>until they are dead.

What about tenants of private landlords who are in the same situation,
except that someone else owns the land?

>You seem to be thinking of allowing people to retain numerous estates
>and holdings without having to pay any taxes on title transfers as
>they acquire or sell individuals properties.

No. It would be better to eliminate taxes on property transfers and
replace them with annual taxes on land value, but that's not what I'm
talking about here.

>> >So what if that piece of property
>> >stays out of the market for a few years or decades, accumulating
>> >wealth?
>>
>> It doesn't accumulate wealth. That's the point. All it does is
>> accumulate a deficit account of foregone production.
>
>And how are you harmed by that Mr. Roy?

The whole community is harmed. The whole world is orders of magnitude
poorer and less advanced because of the accumulated (and compounded)
deficit of foregone production throughout history resulting from
landowner privilege.

>Why do you want a piece of
>everyones wealth if they aren't using as best you think they should?

Land rent is not "their wealth" unless government gives it to them.
Certainly they don't produce it.

>Why do you get to determine the value instead of them?

Only the market gets to determine value.

>> >> >but the government
>> >> >which has a vested interest in collecting said taxes, for the supposed
>> >> >purposes of mutual benifit as you state, can afford to wait until the
>> >> >title or deed to the land is actually transferred to someone else.
>> >> >Can't it?
>> >>
>> >> Of course, grace periods are normal in such cases. It is rare for
>> >> property tax arrears to result in the owner's dispossession, even as
>> >> long as _five_years_ after the last tax payment was received. But
>> >> come on, there has to be a limit on such indulgences.
>> >
>> >Well this concession goes far to assuage some concerns in that what
>> >you are describing does sound like property taxes as I understand
>> >them, and not some novel confiscatory tax to be imposed annually or
>> >more frequently on whomever is unfortunate enough to have scraped up
>> >enough money to buy a piece of property.
>>
>> ?? Odd to be calling landowners, the recipients of massive subsidies,
>> "unfortunate."
>
>I do not favor government subsidies be given to anyone Mr. Roy,
>including landowners.

Yes, actually, you do, though perhaps only because you are one of
them.

>I do pay property taxes, remember?

Which are maybe 1/10 of the value of the benefits you get as a
landowner.

>> What do you call those who _haven't_ been able to accumulate enough
>> money to buy land?
>
>People. Some of who may not want to own land. Some of who want to.
>Somemay not understand what land ownership means.

Yes, well, I am not one of the latter.

>> >And of course as long as it
>> >is a local tax then individuals can at least move to places with tax
>> >rates they are most comfortable with.
>>
>> The only way for a landowner to avoid a land tax is by using less
>> valuable land.
>
>But you just got finished saying that there were land owners who were
>getting "massive subsidies", presumable from the government.

_All_ landowners are, qua landowners, because they are not now subject
to a significant land tax. Hello?

>Why
>should land owners avoid paying taxes by using less valuable land if
>they can get "massive subsidies" from government?

The idea of land value taxation would be to stop those massive
subsidies.

-- Roy L

Quantcast