Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:44:32 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:32:20 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...
The rent is the most someone else would have paid for access to the
unimproved resource. If he's the ony one who knows the resource is
there, he can get it cheap or free.
So he buys land (that everyone thinks is worthless) for $1 per acre, then
installs wells, and its worth $1000 per acre. And the LVT doesn't apply to
him. You're OK with that?
The LVT still applies. He just gets the first crack at the resource
while the LVT is still low. Depending on whether the land rent is
recovered by lease of public land or taxation of private land, he
might get a year or two of grace until the assessments catch up, or a
much longer period of secure tenure under a lease.
Even worse: suppose the guy wasn't clever; maybe he had inside knowledge
that there was water under there. If the LVT doesn't apply to him, that's a
pretty good return for being deceitful.
It applies. He can be deceitful all he wants, but once word is out
about the resource, other people (maybe more efficient users than the
discoverer) are going to want access to it, and cannot rightly be
deprived of it without compensation.
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- From: jmh
- Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- References:
- 'Waterhole' and land rents
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- From: royls
- Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- From: Dan in Philly
- 'Waterhole' and land rents
- Prev by Date: Re: What should be Nationalised *VS* Privatized?
- Next by Date: Re: What should be Nationalised *VS* Privatized?
- Previous by thread: Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- Next by thread: Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|