🚀 go-pugleaf

On 16 Oct 2004 14:48:19 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<416d8317.13482821@news.telus.net>...
>> On 12 Oct 2004 23:41:46 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>> 
>> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
>> >> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>> >> Bonsignore) wrote:
>> >>   
>> >> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
>> >> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
>> >> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
>> >> 
>> >> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
>> >> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
>> >> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
>> >> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
>> >> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
>> >> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
>> >> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
>> >> 
>> >Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
>> >financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
>> >only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
>> >small land taxes.
>> 
>> But taxing away the land rent rather than confiscating the
>> improvements would give them an incentive to invest more in
>> improvements, rather than punishing whatever investment in
>> improvements they had already made.
>> 
>The improvements were very likely amortized long ago.

Some were, some weren't.  You propose to confiscate all.

>I am talking an
>underdeveloped economy where construction drags along as most of the
>economy...

How much will it drag when you start confiscating improvements?

>> >Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
>> >have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
>> >expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income.
>> 
>> They'd have more disposable income and better accommodation as well as
>> life stability if the land rent were taxed.
>> 
>Instead of income? Might be... but you assume that income is related
>to the value of the property's land.

No, I do not.

-- Roy L