Is there the largest asset the land or the property? Rents do not rise, as has already been explained and proven empirically (see the Law on Rent for a basic introduction). You are perhaps conflating land and buildings into a single package? It is important to differentiate them. Investment in raw land for the hope of future capitalisation does not provide a single job; it is an unproductive investment which forces up land prices by creating relative scarcity (and eventually results in real estate bubbles). Investment in housing however does provide jobs and home and interest to the owner (if 'rented').hard working aussie families ("working families") will see their largest asset devalued, whilst rents will rise and outgoings for commercial tenants will directly increase
... god lets hope it remains so, there are enough half brained quack ideas on how to wring money out of productive contributors to society as it is, we need less not more
I would be more than happy to discuss the economics of the matter in another thread and leave this purely for information purposes. Deleting the posts however smacks of censorship, unless there are some which breach the published posting guidelines.I agree, the thread which has some very useful information at the start has now been turned into a slinging match. Is it possible to either delete the latest posts, or put them into a thread of their own. As a sticky this thread is permanently at the begining of all the posts for easy access & the latest posts, while entertaining, are not in the spirit of the original thread.
If Lev doesn't like the censorship aspect, then perhaps this particular thread needs to be 'un stickied', and a new Sticky created that has limited abilities to actually post to, therefore eliminating the risk of the information being derailed.I agree, the thread which has some very useful information at the start has now been turned into a slinging match. Is it possible to either delete the latest posts, or put them into a thread of their own. As a sticky this thread is permanently at the begining of all the posts for easy access & the latest posts, while entertaining, are not in the spirit of the original thread.
I simply cannot believe that on a property forum someone can write that and no-one challenges it.Investment in raw land for the hope of future capitalisation does not provide a single job; it is an unproductive investment which forces up land prices by creating relative scarcity
You can only beat yor head against a brick wall so many times... ok I'll try a bit more.I'm very disapointed in my fellow forum members that no-one has anything to say regarding that statement. Maybe it's only been an hour and people haven't read it as yet.
Anyway, Lev seems to have beaten everyone into submission. Onya Lev.
It has your name on it... Take responsibility. If your opinion has changed since then, say so & also state what you now believe.Actually that was a paraphrase from David Ricardo. Not that I'm even a member of Prosper Australia anymore and haven't been for a year.
Petty criminals??? Maybe we can increase payments to them instead?The Age Letters 19/11/07 said:THE Prime Minister has announced that those convicted of offences involving heroin, cocaine or amphetamines will have their welfare payments quarantined.
This policy will not reduce the use of such drugs one iota. One can only assume it is being proposed for punitive purposes, rather than rehabilitation.
However, such petty criminals will turn to other sources for their necessary income; if not more drug dealing, then certainly theft. Is the Prime Minister also going to dovetail this policy with a home and belongings insurance subsidy? Because it certainly will be needed.
Lev Lafayette, Ripponlea
I'm glad you had the authority to speak on behalf of "almost every economist in the world."The Age Letters 17/2/05 said:We don't need less land tax, we need more. At the same time, we need to reduce taxes on all productive activity. In fact, we can, and should, seek to abolish all taxes except for land tax and other resource rentals. That is what almost every economist in the world recommends. Why don't we listen to them?
Lev Lafayette, St Kilda
Did David Ricardo "paraphrase" this for you as well?http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/672/6429 said:Landlords are well recognised as the least productive class in society. Perhaps the ALP needs to decide whether it is the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Landlord Party. It will be interesting to see whose interests they end up supporting.
I know, you are not a member of this organisation any more...Lev Lafayette 28/6/06 said:Tonight I am representing Prosper Australia, an organisation which has, in various guises, been a part of Victoria for over one hundred years. One key objective of the organisation is the reduction, as much as possible of taxes on labour and capital, and for public finances to be derived instead from site rental.
...I should also mention that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. For several years I was the policy convenor of the Labor Left - Pledge Unions faction, the so-called "hard left" socialist group which strongly opposed the privatisation of public assets and had such disconcerting foreign affairs policies such as ending apartheid in South Africa, self-determination of East Timor, democracy in Indonesia and a state for the Palestinians.
A handful of people in Australia receive the lion's share of the site rent of this nation; this is monies extracted from labourers and productive investors and wealth created from such people. The economist, David Ricardo, saw with great clarity, describing the interest of the landlord (by which he meant literally - not the person who owns and invests in houses) as utterly opposed to the interests of all other classes. Then John Stuart Mill following this lead wrote;
"Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title."
This simple principle of public finance, so far-reaching in its justness and effectiveness, is the orientation that Victoria needs.
1. If the govt increases land tax to enhance aggregate wealth and productivity then it shouldn't be a problem then. After all, they're just doing their job.1. I'm not in the business of creating jobs....that's the Govt's responsibility. I want my Land to appreciate. It's my no.1 objective of why we bought it and pay to hold it, and if that's against the Govt's social feel good agenda, then that's great.
2. The rates and taxes we pay to hold and control the land pay for oodles of Govt work.
3. Raw land still requires the services of surveyors, fencing contractors, weed controllers, valuers every now and again, and what we buy, can be used as laydown area for a whole raft of machinery....far more useful than infrastructure that has height, access and width limitations.
4. Relative scarcity is also created when companies enter into arrangements to buy-back shares from shareholders and cancel them. This creates scarcity in the issued capital and effectively forces the value of the remaining shares up. Warren Buffett has been using this tactic for decades. What's wrong with that ??
5. Banks generally speaking don't give a rats about the improvements on the Lot. They value the raw land as well...where it is, how big it is, and the aspect of it.....hence why we don't renovate.
Anyway, Lev seems to have beaten everyone into submission. Onya Lev.
I am quite happy with Ricardo's comments on the matter. I was merely illustrating the source. I do ask however that you differentiate between the acquisition of land ("landlord") and the provision of capital ("capitalist"). Like Ricardo, I certainly have no problem with the provision and 'renting' of capital assets.You can only beat yor head against a brick wall so many times... ok I'll try a bit more.
It has your name on it... Take responsibility. If your opinion has changed since then, say so & also state what you now believe.
The site goes through point-by-point and explains how nearly every single tax; taxes on labour, taxes on capital, taxes on transactions - all punish productivity and reduce trades. It explicitly states that the only efficient taxes are transaction taxes on luxury consumables and a tax on ground-rents (the annual value of holding a piece of land). It argues that most other taxes are, apart from being being unproductive or difficult to collect, require an invasion of privacy. It argues that taxes on labour are perhaps the worst of all.You want "tax reform" but you haven't actually said what you want changed except increased land tax. So, what rate do you want land tax to be? How about income tax? GST? Has you great list of economists (with no links provided) got any figures lev? Put some substance into your wishy-washy dribble...
Irrelevant to the subject at hand, however in my considered opinion treating this issues as a medical problem rather than with a punitive approach is more successful.
I don't need the authority, they say it themselves. "Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects. ...Landowners ought to look at both sides of the coin. Applying a tax to land values also means removing other taxes." (William Vickery, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, 1996). If you disagree, please provide a contrary example and I will consider it: Any economist of note, among the many tens of thousands, who claims that an reduction in land tax encourages productive investment. JUST ONE.
Are there any matters of fact from the presentation that you wish to discuss?
I have read some of Ayn Rand as well. She never actually presented arguments for the common good, indeed she claimed that altruism was intrinsically evil. Nevertheless she did make some headway in distinguishing between land and capital and, as Dan Sullivan's essay points out, she almost understood site rents as abasis for economic liberty.As a young communist I always thought it important to read as much about the far right in politics as I did about the my chosen side. Ann Rand's book entitled Atlas shrugged was the first of many books that I looked at regarding the opposing arguments of the common good. Both extremes profess to have the masses interest at heart but both apply the jack boot to the esophagus and squeeze the life out of anyone who stands in the way of their brand of "social good"
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position; an action commonly known in rhetoric as a "strawman" argument, which is frankly quite unfair. One should debate a proposition on its merits, not turn it into something that was never presented in the first instance. There is no instance whatsoever in anything that I've provided that suggests that any government acts like Mugabe in Zimbabwe with regards to land. There is no suggestion of appropriation of title deeds, of forcible acquisition or anything like that."Bye Bye American pie drove my chevy to the levy" but lev Lafayette your argument just doesn't hold water. In democratic societies where in the last 100 years the masses have been allowed to acquire and accumulate property those societies have flourished and broken down the class system which you profess to abhor. ( Canada, USA, Britian, Australia, New Zealand)........Where governments have stepped in and expropriated or applied unfair imposts on the ownership of land such as mugabe in Zimbabwe
the people have starved. Tell me its a nasty capitalist plot the entire sorry story of the bread basket of Africa that is now the basket case of Africa
The sheer number of people who own an investment property tells us very little about the distribution of investment properties as a very basic knowledge of statistics would reveal to you. As a matter of fact, the distribution of wealth in Australia has a much higher Gini coefficient than the distribution of income, and the distribution of natural resource ownership is worse still (check the various Australian Bureau of Statistics publications on this matter).The 19th century caricature of the anti-semetic hook nosed shylock landlord needs to be consigned to the waste basket of history. Your clever card trick of advocating the site rental "tax" is exactly what current state governments have done with their voracious land tax imposts. They cynically reason that it is a small group who are powerless. In fact a recent survey suggests that up to 17% of Australian families own at least one investment property.
Absolutely; seeming that an increase in site-rental values is the result of community activity and even government spending (e.g., infastructure), not only is no moral basis for its private appropriation it makes no economic sense either.You said it all above that the increase in land values should belong to the community.....Stand and deliver Lev?
I have also provided plenty of economists of the 20th and 21st century as well. Please provide ONE economist of note who says a reduction in land tax improves productivity.The fact that those "theories remain rooted in the 19th century with all the baggage of its time, speaks volumes about the irrelevance of your premise.
Actually of all the places you noted the only one which hasn't used a variation of site-rental/land tax is Zimbabwe - and of course the use of strawman arguments annoy me - especially if they are used to engage in an ad hominen rhetorical argument as well, as you have done. It is as offensive as a poster making a comment about sex and then you claiming they're a child pornographer.Answer gee Lev I must have really wounded you with that one. You espouse a doctrine thats major goal is to expropriating landlords capital but squirm when I pick out only one example of a kleptomaniac who has applied your principle all be it with a a Zimbabwean twist
Already aware of the content. Not particularly relevant to this discussion and the author, who is a good journalist and apparently not a bad political advisor, needs to do some more work on the notion of "bundle of rights".Can I recommend a great holiday read Lev if you haven't already got it. Its called WHO OWNS THE WORLD the hidden facts behind Landownership by Kevin Cahill ISBN 978 184596 158 9 It should be in every landlord and rebel rousers library shelf
Increase on the unimproved value of land with a contingent reduction in all other taxes on useful labour and capital and especially those related to housing first. As mentioned in the first post I made, there is some justification for taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc however (i.e., incorporating externalities, public health issues etc).I'm still trying to understand if you are proposing for a massive increase in umimproved land tax or upon all land developed or not?
I'm glad to hear that because it is exactly my intent; to encourage investment in the quantity and quality of housing stock, retail centres, factories etc. However, why do you think would it morally wrong to appropriate public funds from land use? Most moral theory on taxation claim that taxing a person's labour and labour products is suspect, but site rental is not.to be honest the former I couldnt care less about, as I have no intention on sitting on raw land. in fact if it relieved me of my current land tax burden it would be advantageous, tho still morally wrong
Seeming that the first paragraphs of the first post started with such "philosophy" (indeed, the discussion is very much about practical implications), I hardly see the difference except perhaps, in presentation of an alternative opinion to original post. If you're bored by the discussion perhaps you shouldn't read it.I was once very interested in this thread but like others am getting bored with what's been postled lately. Can we get back to more practical issues and leave the philosophying to another thread?