Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: cantueso_at_dieznet.com: "Re: An observation on Wealth and Income"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Maybe in reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:01:56 GMT
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:02:36 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> But he doesn't mean the value minus all the improvements on _other_
>> land.
>
>This is what you can not get through your dense skull. The value of some
>improvements on other land will be REFLECTED in what REAL ESTATE PEOPLE
>calculate as the unimproved value.
I have never said otherwise.
>The accounting as it stands is crude
>and can lead to a disincentive to invest.
You repeatedly claim this, but offer no credible reason to believe it.
>We do not want businesses
>having to shut down because a railroad came in and RAISED the unimproved
>value as calculated by a real estate agent.
Yes, actually, we do. We want them to shut down exactly as and when
they are outbid for the land they are using by others who will use it
more productively.
>This gives less incentive
>for the railroad to exist.
Nope. The fact that LVT allows people who will make more use of the
railroad to more rapidly displace others who will not use it as much
provides _more_ incentive for the railroad to be built.
As usual, you are just flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective
fact.
>Friedman is fullly aware of this. You are not.
Friedman said nothing of the sort. You are simply lying.
>The point is system the simple idea tax assesors and real estate agents
>use now of unimproved value being the market of value of a similar plot
>includes capital improvements that make that piece more attractive.
Not capital improvements _on_that_piece_.
>If people build nicer homes around the land the unimproved value would go
>up.
Right. That is what you are denying when you claim that unimproved
value does not include the effect of improvements on nearby parcels.
>If stores are built around the area and roads unimproved values
>rise. These are capital improvements that have less incentive to be
>built because existing businesses have to pay higher taxes and may go
>out of business.
No, stupid, ignorant, lying garbage. The higher taxes they pay
_reflect_the_increased_advantage_of_using_that_land_ that the
improvements on nearby land represent. Those businesses _want_ more
improvements built on nearby land, because the assessments will almost
always lag the actual increased advantage they obtain by using that
land, sometimes by a considerable period of time.
As usual, you are just flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective
fact.
>This is a distortion unless you calculate only the
>value from the land itself and not nearby improvements.
Nope. See above. You are just flat, outright wrong as a matter of
objective fact.
>Natural
>characteristics like grade of soil( for farming), distance to rivers,
>distance to the ocean (both affect shipping cost), the amount of
>resources embodied on the piece of land. ALL OF THESE ARE INTRINSIC
>FACTORS THAT CAN NOT BE CHANGED. A railroad can go out of business if
>taxes on the land by are set too high.
But it is much more likely to go out of business because they are set
too _low_, with the result that the land is left idle for speculative
gain.
>A tax can not make a piece of
>land closer to a major waterway.
But it can make the use of the land more appropriate to its location.
>>>This is the problem just a tax on value is not enough. IT MUST BE ONLY
>>>ON THE UNIMPROVED PORTION.
>>
>> And appraisers measure that value accurately every day.
>
>No not in the sense we are referring to.
Yes, in the sense we are referring to.
>Their appriasals are based on
>improvements as well as unimproved portions. For instance the number of
>trees can enhance the value of a resedential lot. This is an improvement
>that can be changed.
Landscaping is an improvement. Natural trees are not.
>>>Those
>>>characteristics of land that give them higher UNIMPROVED values than
>>>others.
>>
>> The unimproved value of land depends primarily on what goes on around
>> it, not on the physical characteristics of the land itself.
>
>So a piece of land with a 60% slope .5 mile up a mountain will sell for
>the same price as a piece of land in the valley that is completely flat
>if they are equidistant from infrastructure improvements?
No, unless the activities going on around them are the same. You are
just unwilling to know the fact that steeply sloping land in cities
like San Francisco, HK, Pusan, Rio de Janeiro, etc. commands prices
very similar to the prices of lower-lying land where similar
activities are going on.
>This is an absurd proposition.
Right. That's why you stated it. All your propositions are absurd.
>>>It is
>>>likely if you have only read George who has a completely different idea
>>>of capital than modern economist. CAPITAL INCLUDES STRUCTURES, ADDED
>>>IRRIGATION, ETC.
>>
>> That understanding is common to both George and modern economists.
>> Your ignorance of this matter appears to be complete.
>
>Perhaps it was a different work of George's I read but he has a
>definition of capital that rathers to stock of inventories not inputs.
Quote? Thought not.
>In an accounting sense this is somewhat true because inventory is part
>of investment but no economist refers to inventories when he refers to
>capital.
That is most certainly false. I have discussed this matter with
internationally known economists who do, and I can name names.
>George did.
You claimed he excluded structures, irrigation facilities, etc. from
capital. That was a flat, outright lie.
>>>My argument is that improvements also include
>>>improvements that affect multiple parcels that may not get done because
>>>crude accounting will raise taxes on nearby land and cause the owners to
>>>use the proposed improvement less.
>>
>> And that argument is just completely wrong. Owners of nearby land
>> will use the improvement _more_ if the value it adds to their land is
>> taxed, because unlike you, they have at least some minimal
>> understanding of economics, and would therefore know that they might
>> as well use it, because they have to pay for it anyway.
>
>I was not clear here.
No, you were quite clear -- indeed, for you, unusually clear. You
were just wrong. As usual.
>What I meant was that less capital improvement
>would be provided.
Yes, and that claim was also wrong.
>See the example earlier.
Which example? Oh well, it doesn't matter: I have already refuted all
of them.
>If fewer capital
>improvements are provided capital is used less than otherwise would have
>been. I do not think I was clear here.
No, you were clear here but did not think.
-- Roy L
- Next message: cantueso_at_dieznet.com: "Re: An observation on Wealth and Income"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Maybe in reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
