🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> >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.

> >Simply
> >better leisure time quality makes a difference. And old owners receive
> >a compensation, in some cases lump sums, in other an income stream.
> 
> Compensation paid for by whom?
By the government. DId you read the document Home for All?
> 
> >The band aid makes a big difference.
> 
> It covers the sore, allowing it to fester out of view.
> 
> -- Roy L

Read Home for all and leprechauns!.