Re: {Spam?} Re: Paaty/Meeting followup, Steve Cord's 238 LVT study document

4 views
Skip to first unread message

anthony persaud

unread,
Dec 29, 2014, 4:39:05 PM12/29/14
to Billy Fitzgerald, RON RUBIN, Alanna Hartzok, Scott Baker, mikecur...@verizon.net, Lindy Davies, Common Ground NYC, Ed Dodson, Andrew Mazzoni, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, Toby Altschuler, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, msul...@schalkenbach.org, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gil Herman, Jacob Shwartz-Lucas, Alanna Hartzok, Josh Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
interesting that you included us in this discussion according to Drudge Report headline right now today, it reads: 




Newspapers can seem like a rude intrusion into the Christmas holidays. We celebrate peace, goodwill and family – and then along come the headlines, telling us what’s going wrong in the world. Simon and Garfunkel made this point in 7 O’Clock News/Silent Night, a song juxtaposing a carol with a newsreader bringing bad tidings. But this is the nature of news. Whether it’s pub gossip or television bulletins, we’re more interested in what’s going wrong than with what’s going right.

Judging the world through headlines is like judging a city by spending a night in A&E – you only see the worst problems. This may have felt like the year of Ebola and Isil but in fact, objectively, 2014 has probably been the best year in history. Take war, for example – our lives now are more peaceful than at any time known to the human species. Archaeologists believe that 15 per cent of early mankind met a violent death, a ratio not even matched by the last two world wars. Since they ended, wars have become rarer and less deadly. More British soldiers died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme than in every post-1945 conflict put together.

The Isil barbarity in the Middle East is so shocking, perhaps, because it comes against a backdrop of unprecedented world peace.

We have recently been celebrating a quarter-century since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which kicked off a period of global calm. The Canadian academic Steven Pinker has called this era the “New Peace”, noting that conflicts of all kinds – genocide, autocracy and even terrorism – went on to decline sharply the world over. Pinker came up with the phrase four years ago, but only now can we see the full extent of its dividends.

With peace comes trade and, ergo, prosperity. Global capitalism has transferred wealth faster than foreign aid ever could.

A study in the current issue of The Lancet shows what all of this means. Global life expectancy now stands at a new high of 71.5 years, up six years since 1990. In India, life expectancy is up seven years for men, and 10 for women. It’s rising faster in the impoverished east of Africa than anywhere else on the planet. In Rwanda and Ethiopia, life expectancy has risen by 15 years.

This helps explain why Bob Geldof’s latest Band Aid single now sounds so cringingly out-of-date. Africans certainly do know it’s Christmas – a Nigerian child is almost twice as likely to mark the occasion by attending church than a British one. The Ebola crisis has led to 7,000 deaths, each one a tragedy. But far more lives have been saved by the progress against malaria, HIV and diarrhoea. The World Bank’s rate of extreme poverty (those living on less than $1.25 a day) has more than halved since 1990, mainly thanks to China – where economic growth and the assault on poverty are being unwittingly supported by any parent who put a plastic toy under the tree yesterday.

Britons don’t need to look abroad for signs of progress. The Lancet report showed that, since 1990, life expectancy in Western Europe is up by five years – thanks, mainly, to fewer deaths from cancer and heart disease.

Ministers are now fretting about something else: a “time bomb” created because citizens are living longer and healthier lives than ever; the Queen now needs a team of seven people to send birthday cards to centenarians. Even the winter, one of our biggest killers, is losing its bite. For decades, at least 25,000 pensioners have died of cold-related diseases. A few weeks ago, it emerged that last winter the figure had fallen to 18,200 - the lowest ever recorded. Almost half a century after the moon landing, we’re finally working out how to insulate the homes of the elderly.

Prosperity is bringing benefits without trashing the planet. Since 1990, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions are down, in spite of our economy being about 60 per cent larger – thanks to more efficient technology. Our roads are safer, as well as greener. Traffic deaths are down by two-thirds since 1990, and are lower now than when the Model T Ford was on the road.

Prosperity does bring new problems; obesity, the resulting diabetes and the costs of far longer (and better) end-of-life care. But these are the problems of success.

Just over a century ago, a period of similarly rapid progress was coming to an abrupt end. The Belle Époque was a generation of scientific, medical and artistic advances, which, then, felt unstoppable. John Buchan summed up this mood in his 1913 novel The Power House. “You think that a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism,” one of his characters says. “I tell you: the division is a thread, a sheet of glass. A touch here, a push there, and you bring back the reign of Saturn.” So it was to prove.

Nothing is irreversible. And there will be a great many people for whom life is tough, and looks set to remain so for some time. We still have a lamentably long list of problems to solve. But in the round, there’s no denying it: we are living in the Golden Era. There has never been a better reason for people the world over to wish each other a happy and prosperous new year.

Fraser Nelson is editor of 'The Spectator’


On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Billy Fitzgerald <billyfi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
While the points made in this exchange are valid, please do not overlook the moral issue.
 
It is the moral aspect that distinguishes LVT from all other taxes, and eliminates the charge of pragmatism.
 
B


On Monday, December 29, 2014 3:22 PM, RON RUBIN <harmo...@verizon.net> wrote:


Alanna - You may be right about the need for a better job of connecting the dots...but my personal opinion is that will not get the job done. It is far easier for the Rentier Class to disconnect the dots than for the Productive Class to connect them. It is always easier to destroy something than it is to build something.
I would say that the current state of the world is my best argument.
 
I think that Real Change hinges on Power...and in our current (Market) economic system (Financialism), Power is a commodity that can be bought and sold in the market. Since they have the Money, they have Bought the Power. If you are not at the table...you are on the menu.
 
The real issue for Progressives is how to wrest power from the Rentier Class.
 
I don't have a simple answers...I doubt if there are any...but this is the issue that we as a group need to address.
 
Reason alone won't do it.
 
Ron
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: {Spam?} Re: Paaty/Meeting followup, Steve Cord's 238 LVT study document

Ron - what I am hearing from people who find LVT of interest, is that they need us to show these connections, how LVT will address wealth inequality, working people, corporate rule, collapse of middle class,  issues of war and peace.  I am being told that we - our Georgist movement - need to do a much better job of connecting the dots. 
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
 
Thanks Alanna for so succintly putting this issue to bed.
 
The real question, and it is a rhetorical question, is will LVT redistribute wealth from the Rentier Class to the Productive Class?
 
We know the answer and that is why we stay involved.
 
Ron
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: {Spam?} Re: Paaty/Meeting followup, Steve Cord's 238 LVT study document

This type of conversation has gone on for years. The answer to "will LVT lower or raise the price of land?" is BOTH. Whether it lowers or raises the price of land depends on a number of factors, not just whether it is a local, state or national tax.  
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
 
Scott, LVT in one city will not create free land; it will tend to raise the price of land in that city. Let's remember that empty land isn't free land. We might be tempted to think that abandoned, city-owned lots are "free land," but they got that way in a specific tax and market environment. If we make their areas more attractive, either by LVT or by conventional gentrification, then those lots will be very valuable again. We need to realize that local LVT can be seen as an engine of gentrification. That might not be an entirely bad thing, but we're mistaken if we leave it out of the mix in our advocacy.

We MUST be clear about the distinction between the full national -- or preferably international -- single tax and partial local implementation. The latter is still a good and desirable outcome! We just need to understand what we are -- and aren't -- promising.

-----> Lindy

p.s. Another thing that is incredibly important to remember is that government regulation, assessment and tax policy has EVERYTHING to do with what land is, and what natural opportunities are worth, especially in cities. There's "free land" in condo units, when they are underassessed. There's even free land, of a sort, in rent-stabilized leases. In some ways, this really is rocket science. We need to be doing our homework.

Hi Mike et al,

(I think these addresses all work - at least none of them bounced for me).
I actually do believe that LVT will create free land, albeit so briefly that it's impossible to stake a claim there, in a city, state, or whatever desirable place to live it is implemented within.  And that is where the cheaper land will be found too, next to the free land.  As the market settles a price on this "new" land, which is really just land that has been wrested from speculators by the new tax, people and businesses will move into it - while some leave other land because they can't make good use of it.  Land at the margins will increase in quantity.  After all, in NYC, who thought a derelict, rusting former inner-city train trestle would be a desirable place to live near and work?  But now we have a thriving neighborhood worth over $2B, so far, near the Highline Park.  Former Mayor Giuliani wanted to tear it down!  You can't get much freer than that, though more through policy and withholding than through actual market forces. 
In any case, the point is that with LVT, there will always be some marginal land for people to start out on, though it may not be so obvious at the time where it is. (Von Thunen diagrams won't help much at this level of nuance, I'm afraid). The thing that short-circuits the market is not having LVT, not having it.

Cord's studies show in a very direct way that land rent will go down in the immediate term.  In my discussions with him, he stressed not to emphasize the later benefits of LVT in bringing up land rent, since he thought A) no one would believe us, and B) it would discourage its implementation because politicians would fear for their constituents ability to continue to live in now more desirable places.
I can testify that he is right on both counts.  When I talked to my state Senator Liz Krueger, sometimes with Rita, sometimes alone, she did come around to seeing that it would work - she is smarter than the average politicians, IMO - but then worried her elderly fixed income constituents would be "forced out."  She said her district would be over-taken by unaffordable high-raises.  I tried to point out that this was already happening, in spite of her and others' efforts to keep rent affordable, because the overall supply of housing was inadequate, partly because of the lockup of un- and under-utilized land, but she saw this as a minor influence in her crowded midtown Manhattan neighborhood.  She suggested this might work in outer Queens etc. where land is already cheap.  Oh, did I mention her husband is a R.E. developer?

There is a reason Josh and others focus on smaller towns, though I don't believe that is because a case couldn't be made for highly desirable places like NYC, if some provision was made to take care of land-rich, but cash poor residents during the transition (for example, to give them comparable housing in other areas, or deferral on land-rent until the property is sold or the occupant dies).
 
Scott Baker - President: Common Ground - NYC; NY State Coordinator, Public Banking Institute; Opednews Blogger/Managing Editor; Huffington Post Blogger; Author




On Monday, December 29, 2014 8:32 AM, Mike Curtis <mikecur...@verizon.net> wrote:


Dear Scott and fellow Common Grounders, thanks again for a wonderful party.  As I am sure you all noticed, I had a great time.

 Thanks for sharing our discussion, and sending Cord’s studies. I had forgotten about them.  They are most impressive, and I think a great incentive for people who might otherwise dismiss our claims, to pursue an understanding of the reason why LVT yields more jobs and housing, while homeowners and all other people who put their land to its highest and best use pay less.

I also appreciate your stating our discussion about whether a switch to LVT will make land cheaper in a city that makes the switch. 
My reason for saying it won’t is because of the law of rent:  "The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same application [of labor & capital] can secure from the most productive land that is free.† Or, if there is no free land, as Ricardo formulates it, “ the most productive land in useâ€.  Since a switch to LVT in a single city or even a state won’t create any free land that yields more than the normal wages and interest, all the increase in productivity that results from revitalization of a city, will go to landowners.

This is not in any way to say that LVT is not a positive thing in a regional application.  More jobs, and more housing means less poverty — less unemployment and less homelessness.  It means thatt people who are buying a house and have made a down payment will pay less in taxes and enjoy a higher standard of living, as Steve Cord’s studies show: homeowners pay less with LVT.  But, there is no conceptually way that you can increase the desirability and the productivity of a region by encouraging economic development and cooperation, and have it be worth less than it was before — unless you create free laand, which is exactly what will happen when the switch is implemented throughout the entire country.  So, as someone said on Saturday, “but we are advocating it for the whole country.

Again, it was great seeing you all.

Happy New Year,

Mike Curtis


On Dec 28, 2014, at 5:15 AM, Scott Baker <ssbak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Common Groundlings (and friends)!

Thanks to all who were able to attend last night's Common Ground-NYC annual holiday party/meeting.  About a dozen of us had good talks, good food and good cheer!

Unsurprisingly, we got into a pretty good discussion of Georgism, how to implement it, how our group can be more effective and also work with like-minded groups and others.  I've already started looking into some of your suggestions and will report back in the future.

One of the things that came up, and which is important in making our "pitch" is the question:
Does Land Value Taxation raise or lower the cost of housing in a given area for most people?
The answer is not as simple as saying: Yes, because more land would be freed up by the tax. 
This is because as land is freed up, opportunities increase, people flock to the area, wages rise, and land prices go up, etc.

However, there is another way to look at this, courtesy of 238 empirical studies, highlighted by very long-time Georgist, Steve Cord (with my help) in the 2 attached documents. 
    Cord concludes (emphasis added):
Here’s How Your State Could Reduce Taxes For Most Taxpayers And Stimulate Your Economy While Maintaining Complete Revenue Neutrality
Your state can gain these 2 advantages by taxing land assessments more and what is produced (like buildings) less. Find out the various ways to do this. It would be completely revenue-neutral since an economically beneficial tax would be reducing economically harmful taxes. This is what would happen:
(1) Most taxpayers would be taxed less because their tax reduction will exceed what they would pay with the higher tax on land assessments. All nonlandowning renters would pay less because there’d be less building tax passed on to them and in the long run the land tax cannot be passed on to them.
(2) New construction & renovation, in particular, would be more profitable because they’d be taxed less. Perhaps tax-exempt these activities entirely (not their land) for the first 7 years. Here’s how to stimulate your state’s economy.
Nothing in economics seems as well substantiated. Eight (8) American winners of
the Nobel Prize in economics have endorsed this tax...

Then follows 28 pages of summarized LVT studies.  It was quite interesting to compile all of this, but of course, Steve Cord had done most of the heavy lifting throughout his more than half-century career (Steve is in his 90s now, so perhaps use the document's advice to contact him for further info cautiously.  The younger Josh Vincent has taken on the mantle of direct implementation at the Center for the Study of Economics, CCed on this email).

I posted these 2 similar files to this email and to the Economic Reform Yahoo group: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/EconomicReform/info files section, and to the Effective Georgism Facebook group files section: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effectivegeorgism/files/.  They use the same studies, but the openings and formatting and descriptions differ, so pick the version you like best!  Then, follow the instructions, go to your council member, assembly member or state senator, and advocate for land value taxation!
 
Member Ron Rubin also brought up State Senator Brad Hoylman's recent Pied-a-terre tax, which you may remember was referenced in the December 4 e-update:
A Land Value Tax is just the beginning, unfortunately.  Things have gotten way out of hand, with non-resident billionaire owners absent 10 months a year and paying NO income tax either because they don't live here!
Pieds-Ã -Terre Owners Dominate Some New York Buildings

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pieds-Ã -Terre Owners Dominate Some New York Buildings
The Census Bureau tracks vacancy rates to find out who lives in Manhattan full time.

View on www.nytimes.com
Preview by Yahoo

 
State Senator Brad Hoynman is trying to pass a pied-a-terre tax, but even if it passes - a very big if in this Real Estate-dominated city - it would only put a tax on multimillion dollar apartments amounting to about half what London taxes, and London isn't exactly land-owner unfriendly either. 

One interesting finding, which I hadn't had before, is this figure as quoted by (my) Senator Liz Krueger (whom I and Rita, or just me, have discussed this issue with or supplied data for, several times now).  From the Moyers' show transcript:
NEW YORK STATE SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: An example in a recent news story was a $90 million, 13,554 square foot penthouse and with 421a exemption allowed in this bill, their taxes per year would be $20,000. If they were not rolled into this legislation their taxes would be $230,000.
BILL MOYERS: Let’s hear that again.
NEW YORK STATE SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Their taxes per year would be $20,000. If they were not rolled into this legislation their taxes would be $230,000.

We have supported these measures and/or met with both of them in the past, but of course, they need our support now more than ever.

What's new now, is that we now have a bill number:
S7941-2013 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Imposes an additional tax surcharge on certain non-primary residence class one and class two properties in a city with a population of one million or more - New York State Senate

My State Senator, Liz Krueger, is already a co-sponsor, so it's up to you to add some more to the list.  This is not LVT, but it is something from a Senator who might then be on our side if we support him on this.  Let me know if you want me to attend a meeting with you and your Senator on this important, albeit limited, bill.

OK, that's enough reading assignment for now.  *;) winking    Until next time, Happy Landings....
 
Scott Baker - President: Common Ground - NYC; NY State Coordinator, Public Banking Institute; Opednews Blogger/Managing Editor; Huffington Post Blogger; Author

Video Appearances & Slideshows here:
http://newthinking.blogspot.com/

Petitions:
-- Commemorate President Lincoln's Assassination with 1 Billion Debt-Free Lincoln $5 Bills
-- Replace Property Tax with Ground Rent in New York State
-- Assess NYC buildings using comparative properties
-- California Dreaming: Set up a State Bank with abundant CAFR funds
-- Complete the East Side Manhattan Greenway from 38-61 Streets and save bikers, help the environment, and clear up traffic
-- Tax Vacant & Unused Land to Return its value to the Community
-- Close New York State's budget Gap with money from its own agencies by setting up a State Bank
-- Defend the Clean Air Act
-- Produce debt-free United States Notes
-- Reclassify the FED's account, from private to public
<238 Peer Reviewed Studies of LVT by Steven Cord.pdf><233 Empirical Studies Plus 5 Endorsements of a Tax That  Has Stimulated the Economy & Lowered Taxes for Most People.pdf>


 
 





--
Anthony Persaud
I.T. Support Specialist,Independent Thinker,
Henry George School Of Social Sciences
Social Economic Justice Enthusiast



anthony persaud

unread,
Dec 29, 2014, 4:58:33 PM12/29/14
to Billy Fitzgerald, RON RUBIN, Alanna Hartzok, Scott Baker, mikecur...@verizon.net, Lindy Davies, Common Ground NYC, Ed Dodson, Andrew Mazzoni, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, Toby Altschuler, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, msul...@schalkenbach.org, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gil Herman, Jacob Shwartz-Lucas, Alanna Hartzok, Josh Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
speaking about these issues here, yet another to top it off - these are the most admirable people in the world- imagine that, if it's any indication of what is going on in our world, not to side step the main discussion here but just to give you all as you already know what is happening out there, well according to the mainstream status quo folks ...what to do, oh what to do to identify the real issues and to fix the problems ... 

Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman, Obama most admired man

By Ashley Killough, CNN
updated 10:31 AM EST, Mon December 29, 2014

anthony persaud

unread,
Dec 29, 2014, 5:13:47 PM12/29/14
to Lindy Davies, Billy Fitzgerald, RON RUBIN, Alanna Hartzok, Scott Baker, mikecur...@verizon.net, Common Ground NYC, Ed Dodson, Andrew Mazzoni, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, Toby Altschuler, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, msul...@schalkenbach.org, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gil Herman, Jacob Shwartz-Lucas, Alanna Hartzok, Josh Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
Brett, great job at connecting the issue of money and banking ie private banking as it relates to LVT ... both issues need to be addressed hence the reason why our study group as correctly labeled them the two pillars of capitalism ... 

To the greater discussion as to LVT and Georgist community which has always boggled my mind since George's books are amazing to read and so pragmatic on many levels ... I just can't understand why the Georgist community is not making a bigger impact or at the forefront of all the discussions out there - is there any group in the Georgist community that is specifically organizing, PR-ing, strategizing etc to get into the mainstream discussion - even on shows like The Real News, Democracy Now, etc - these are some good places for our community to start penetrating to get the message out there ... I have been watching Democracy Now for a very very long time since my early 20s and I have not heard any discussion Henry George's ideas ... The Real News is relatively new in the last few years but they are growing and making quit splash without any corporate funding at all ... if we can get one of the top dogs in the Georgist community to get on the show, that will really reach a wide audience in the alternative movement ... just saying :) 



On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Lindy Davies <li...@henrygeorge.org> wrote:
According to Henry George, Billy, "justice is the highest and truest expediency." Pragmatism isn't everything, but it isn't a BAD thing.

Furthermore, introductory LVT in cities -- which is the ONLY real-world application we've yet seen, in the USA, anyway -- has always been sold on a pragmatic level.

As I've said, it really does behoove us to understand what we're talking about.

-----> Lindy

p.s. Well, yes, we have had the Alaska Permanent Fund -- which is also a limited, introductory application, and widely sold/understood/considered in pragmatic terms.
 Thanks for sharing our discussion, and sending Cord’s studies. I had forgorgotten about them.  They are most impressive, and I think a great incentive for people who might otherwise dismiss our claims, to pursue an understanding of the reason why LVT yields more jobs and housing, while homeowners and all other people who put their land to its highest and best use pay less.

I also appreciate your stating our discussion about whether a switch to LVT will make land cheaper in a city that makes the switch. 
My reason for saying it won’t is because of the law of rent: "The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same application [of labor & capital] can secure from the most productive land that is free.† Or,, if there is no free land, as Ricardo formulates it, “ ththe most productive land in useâ€.  Since a switch to LVT in a singlle city or even a state won’t create any free land that at yields more than the normal wages and interest, all the increase in productivity that results from revitalization of a city, will go to landowners.

This is not in any way to say that LVT is not a positive thing in a regional application.  More jobs, and more housing means less poverty — less unemployment aand less homelessness.  It means thatt people who are buying a house and have made a down payment will pay less in taxes and enjoy a higher standard of living, as Steve Cordâ€â„„¢s studies show: homeowners pay less with LVT.  But, there is no conceptually way that you can increase the desirability and the productivity of a region by encouraging economic development and cooperation, and have it be worth less than it was before — unless youu create free laand, which is exactly what will happen when the switch is implemented throughout the entire country.  So, as someone said on Saturday, “but we are advocating g it for the whole country.

Again, it was great seeing you all.

Happy New Year,

Mike Curtis


On Dec 28, 2014, at 5:15 AM, Scott Baker <ssbak...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Common Groundlings (and friends)!

Thanks to all who were able to attend last night's Common Ground-NYC annual holiday party/meeting.  About a dozen of us had good talks, good food and good cheer!

Unsurprisingly, we got into a pretty good discussion of Georgism, how to implement it, how our group can be more effective and also work with like-minded groups and others.  I've already started looking into some of your suggestions and will report back in the future.

One of the things that came up, and which is important in making our "pitch" is the question:
Does Land Value Taxation raise or lower the cost of housing in a given area for most people?
The answer is not as simple as saying: Yes, because more land would be freed up by the tax. 
This is because as land is freed up, opportunities increase, people flock to the area, wages rise, and land prices go up, etc.

However, there is another way to look at this, courtesy of 238 empirical studies, highlighted by very long-time Georgist, Steve Cord (with my help) in the 2 attached documents. 
    Cord concludes (emphasis added):
Here̢۪s How Your State Could Re Reduce Taxes For Most Taxpayers And Stimulate Your Economy While Maintaining Complete Revenue Neutrality
Your state can gain these 2 advantages by taxing land assessments more and what is produced (like buildings) less. Find out the various ways to do this. It would be completely revenue-neutral since an economically beneficial tax would be reducing economically harmful taxes. This is what would happen:
(1) Most taxpayers would be taxed less because their tax reduction will exceed what they would pay with the higher tax on land assessments. All nonlandowning renters would pay less because there̢۪d be less building taxtax passed on to them and in the long run the land tax cannot be passed on to them.
(2) New construction & renovation, in particular, would be more profitable because they̢۪d be be taxed less. Perhaps tax-exempt these activities entirely (not their land) for the first 7 years. Here̢۪s how to stimulaulate your state̢۪s economy.
Nothing in economics seems as well substantiated. Eight (8) American winners of
the Nobel Prize in economics have endorsed this tax...
Then follows 28 pages of summarized LVT studies.  It was quite interesting to compile all of this, but of course, Steve Cord had done most of the heavy lifting throughout his more than half-century career (Steve is in his 90s now, so perhaps use the document's advice to contact him for further info cautiously.  The younger Josh Vincent has taken on the mantle of direct implementation at the Center for the Study of Economics, CCed on this email).

I posted these 2 similar files to this email and to the Economic Reform Yahoo group: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/EconomicReform/info files section, and to the Effective Georgism Facebook group files section: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effectivegeorgism/files/.  They use the same studies, but the openings and formatting and descriptions differ, so pick the version you like best!  Then, follow the instructions, go to your council member, assembly member or state senator, and advocate for land value taxation!
 
Member Ron Rubin also brought up State Senator Brad Hoylman's recent Pied-a-terre tax, which you may remember was referenced in the December 4 e-update:
A Land Value Tax is just the beginning, unfortunately.  Things have gotten way out of hand, with non-resident billionaire owners absent 10 months a year and paying NO income tax either because they don't live here!
Pieds-Ã -Terre Owners Dominate Some New York Buildings

 
 
image  
 
 
 
 
 
Pieds-Ã -Terre Owners Dominate Some New York Buildings
The Census Bureau tracks vacancy rates to find out who lives in Manhattan full time.

View on www.nytimes.com
Preview by Yahoo

State Senator Brad Hoynman is trying to pass a pied-a-terre tax, but even if it passes - a very big if in this Real Estate-dominated city - it would only put a tax on multimillion dollar apartments amounting to about half what London taxes, and London isn't exactly land-owner unfriendly either. 
One interesting finding, which I hadn't had before, is this figure as quoted by (my) Senator Liz Krueger (whom I and Rita, or just me, have discussed this issue with or supplied data for, several times now).  From the Moyers' show transcript:
NEW YORK STATE SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: An example in a recent news story was a $90 million, 13,554 square foot penthouse and with 421a exemption allowed in this bill, their taxes per year would be $20,000. If they were not rolled into this legislation their taxes would be $230,000.
BILL MOYERS: Let̢۪s hear thathat again.

Scott Baker

unread,
Dec 29, 2014, 8:20:40 PM12/29/14
to anthony persaud, Lindy Davies, Billy Fitzgerald, RON RUBIN, Alanna Hartzok, mikecur...@verizon.net, Common Ground NYC, Ed Dodson, Andrew Mazzoni, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, Toby Altschuler, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, msul...@schalkenbach.org, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gil Herman, Jacob Shwartz-Lucas, Alanna Hartzok, Josh Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
Anthony -
You bring up the same issues so often, while ignoring those of us who are actually doing what you suggest, that I almost believe it is deliberate.  I'm probably going to regret this, but just to briefly recap:
- May articles have been read, collectively, by half a million people now. On Opednews alone:
OpEdNews Member for 322 week(s) and 2 day(s)
Content Pageviews (Total/Last Month) - Article Pageviews (427,062/6,275) - Quicklink Pageviews (434,020/3,174) - Diary Pageviews (18,496/542) - Poll Pageviews (15,652/6)
214 Articles, 741 Quick Links, 2329 Comments, 28 Diaries, 2 Petitions, 21 Series, 6 Polls
Then add Huffington Post, Global Economic Intersection, Daily Kos, and other blogs and comments too numerable to count (I'm in almost every issue of GroundSwell too).
- about 2 dozen TV/radio/live presentations.  See here, latest presentation in Goshen, NY pending:
Video Appearances & Slideshows here:
http://newthinking.blogspot.com/
This includes both cable TV and "Breaking the Set" with Abby Martin on RT TV (I think it has higher ratings than Real News, but I'm not sure).  Of course, if Democracy Today or the other shows asked me, I'd go on there too.

Of course, Andy Mazzone is setting up a series of really quite professional and important Smart Talk TV webisodes, with increasing reach all the time, with the kinds of guests you are talking about, and others.  Who's promoting those besides me (on Opednews)?

And Michael Hudson, in his less acerbic moments, has promoted Georgism better than most of us ever will (even while deriding some of its participants for being insufficiently Georgist).

Of course, Alanna just came off a campaign in which she got more than half the votes of her opponent, while spending only $18K to her deep-pocketed Republican opponent's 3.5m (or more, I forget at those levels). At a cost per vote, she is FAR ahead.

Lindy made a major presentation to the Fed, which I cite regularly now in my own work (not quite sure why he seems to imply others aren't doing their homework, but that's another story.  Perhaps he can pick out which of my (or his) 47 slides in my presentation is an example of that.  Most people tell me they can barely absorb all the information I'm already giving them.  No one has successfully challenged me in class itself, though some have tried).

We can and should all do more, and I know I'll have more to announce soon, but really, there is just too much to list here, and you shouldn't keep throwing the inactivist blanket over everyone.  It's not right.
 

anthony persaud

unread,
Dec 29, 2014, 10:01:20 PM12/29/14
to Alanna Hartzok, Lindy Davies, Billy Fitzgerald, Ron Rubin, Scott Baker, Mike Curtis, Common Ground NYC, Ed Dodson, Andrew Mazzoni, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, Toby Altschuler, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, Mark Sullivan, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gil Herman, Alanna Hartzok, Josh Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
Alanna, precisely my point. 

Btw, thanks for all the great work you do raising awareness and fighting the good fight.

Scott, I have always acknowledged the tremendous work you do and applaud you for it - you work so diligently. sorry if what I was saying didn't come out the right way ...

Essentially, what I believe is needed right now is a really solid front from the movement as a whole speaking with one voice and a direct message ( to the mainstream public ) highlighting how to fix the disaster of an economy we have which it is not really any economy by any means at all, since it does not economize or focus on any efficient means of management, production, distribution,  or consideration for the environment and the beings who get trapped in the current model/paradigm ... it is pure madness what is happening on the planet. 

Also, how can a movement reinforce it's strength and find ways to push it's message to a wider mainstream audience( we are already preaching to the choir :) )  - which is where we need to be to make a dent and potentially influence public policy at any level in society.

Like Ron, I too, don't have any answers per se, but the conscious awareness of the movement as a whole can figure out a plan to mobilize, strategist and get an audience with the hopes of planting these ideas into the minds of the mainstream so that people can start asking the right questions and petitioning their representatives for solutions grounded in George's remedy. There is no reason why this can not be done as we have vast amounts data, research, years of experience in the subject matter, and not to mention the great minds in the Georgist movement/community. 





On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Alanna Hartzok <ala...@centurylink.net> wrote:
Anthony - Most successful movements have a PR and Media team. Georgist movement does not. We need this. Lots of good speakers with no place to go. 
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------

Anthony Persaud

unread,
Dec 30, 2014, 12:24:32 AM12/30/14
to Mike Curtis, Lindy Davies, Billy Fitzgerald, RON RUBIN, Alanna Hartzok, Scott Baker, Common Ground NYC, Edward Dodson, Andrew Mazzone, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, toby lenihan, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, msul...@schalkenbach.org, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gill Herman, Alanna Hartzok, Joshua Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
mike, you're a great teacher and I think you'll do great on that show - on the show you do get a reasonable amount of time to explain things from what I've noticed - would make me proud to see someone in our movement on the show breaking things down ...

we should really gather together our resources and petitioning media to get air time - what ever little or much would really take the Georgist community in a wonderful direction ... my wish is to see Georgists at every level of debate in our country right there with all the other ideas some of which are outright ridiculous as it relates to common sense and not to mention what billy said about morality - where is the justice for the enslavement we are all being coerced into? 

another world is possible but we have to fight like hell for it - it will not be given to us just like that ... not now not never ...no movement has made progress by being on the menu as Ron would say - we need to be at the table arguing and fighting for our beliefs to get a chance to be implemented ...no justice no peace 

what do we have to lose? 




Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 30, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Mike Curtis <mikecur...@verizon.net> wrote:

Anthony, I listen to Democracy on the internet most week days.  They don’t seem to know about LVT, and I keep trying to think of someone who would do us proud on the show.  I have no illusions that I could explain it well enough with words alone in the interview format to Amy or Juan, who doesn’t know how different land is.  May be Fred Harrison would do well if he had a chance. 

Mike

Scott Baker

unread,
Dec 30, 2014, 5:09:51 AM12/30/14
to anthony persaud, Alanna Hartzok, Lindy Davies, Billy Fitzgerald, Ron Rubin, Mike Curtis, Common Ground NYC, Ed Dodson, Andrew Mazzoni, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, Toby Altschuler, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, Mark Sullivan, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gil Herman, Alanna Hartzok, Josh Vincent, Allen Smith, Brett Barndt
Anthony, thank you and sorry if I sounded snappy.
On your other suggestion as to outreach, I would be willing to help draft a letter to Democracy Now or similar show(s), providing that:
A.  People can agree on who to promote to be on the show (Michael Hudson has been on there many times, but most people don't consider him a Georgist, including Michael). I'll keep my opinion to myself on this one, so as to avoid conflicts-of-interest.
B.  We keep the pitch under a page, including header and signatures.  This is not hard; I've done it before.
C.  The HGS as well as CGNYC (who else?  HGI?  CGO?  IU?  CSE?) collaborates on this project and gets mentioned as supporting organizations.

anthony persaud

unread,
Dec 30, 2014, 1:05:00 PM12/30/14
to Brett Barndt, Edward Dodson, Mike Curtis, Lindy Davies, Billy Fitzgerald, RON RUBIN, Alanna Hartzok, Scott Baker, Common Ground NYC, Andrew Mazzone, John Tepper Marlin, Bill Batt, B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche, osamuue...@aol.com, Cay Hehner, David M Korn, Will Lenihan, toby lenihan, Mirella Landriscina, Polly Cleveland, Pat Aller, Mark Sullivan, Ralph Rivera, Halina Szwed, Gill Herman, Alanna Hartzok, Joshua Vincent, Allen Smith
Brett fascinating information ... the 99% is really screwed at every angle at every level of institution in this society ... what is to be done? Perhaps the NWO is fully on its way as the conspiracy world is indicating by all accounts ... 

Given the above and apart from Georgist community making an impact to usher in justice, one really have to wonder what the immediate future will look like given the series of events such as wide scale global protests, climate change disasters ripping communities apart on the planet, widespread corruption such as in Mexico, US and Europe, the gearing up for WW3 based on certain actions such as crashing Russia's currency and OPEC lowering oil prices to bring about the crippling of certain economies, the imminent cyber wars, and among other things? 




On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Brett Barndt <brett...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is interesting. Beyond crimes, the media doesn't engage too much on theory except the well promoted dichotomy Keynes, Hayek, Neo-liberalism.

William Greider in his book "who will tell the people" says that media cannot understand financial system issues. I think it has something to do with journalism school.

DemocracyNow does not cover financial stories. For a while, they were getting pretty close, like with the book Treasure Islands or Inside Job by Charles Ferguson. They were both on that show. They show no deep interest in financial system issues. They also have many many fewer guests on who are investigative reporters. They used to feature investigative journalists and their books all the time.

But, over the last few years, I have particularly noticed they are steering much closer to normal left /right issues, which do not include anything beyond the wage earner/manufacturer relationship, or Keynesian ideas of taxation to make up for the shortcomings of the system. They put verbatim recordings of politicians on using up their airtime than they ever did before to make sure the story doesn't drift off "the reservation" as Helen Thomas used to say.

They also particularly focus on race, which is particularly dangerous since inciting race war, and counter-war by the Left against people accused of being racists, is something that observers and historians predict the financiers really want to erupt here. DN! of course serves to bait the latter against people accused of being racists, like whole groups of policemen.

I feel that something happened about their funding sources that has changed. It was rumored that they keep certain stories off the air because of Rockefeller Foundation funding. Russ Baker's interview with Amy Goodman about his book Family of Secrets never aired on DN!

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edward Dodson <edod...@comcast.net> wrote:

Jake wanted to be deleted from the exchange, so I have done so.

 

Anthony, I listen to Democracy on the internet most week days.  They don’t seem to know about LVT, and I keep trying to think of someone who would do us proud on the show.  I have no illusions that I could explain it well enough with words alone in the interview format to Amy or Juan, who doesn’t know how different land is.  May be Fred Harrison would do well if he had a chance. 

 

Ed here:

Fred Harrison has been interviewed on the one RT.com program out of London.

 

The problem is that it takes repetition to begin to penetrate that body of thinking that passes for conventional wisdom.

 



This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages