tcpip: (Default)
Diary of a B+ Grade Polymath ([personal profile] tcpip) wrote2007-12-10 11:35 pm

Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

Most regular readers will know I'm an advocate of land tax as a replace for inefficient and unproductive taxes on labour and capital. On a whim, I entered this discussion on a property investment website. Enjoy the results. What I find particularly remarkable is their ignorance of basic economics (like the Law of Rent or the distinction between land and capital) on matters they claim expertise in. Actually I must confess I find this a lot; often people with a strong opinion on a topic like to think they're an expert on a topic. Personally, I prefer to form a strong opinion by reaching "deeply considered convictions", based on reason and evidence, rather than having "deeply ingrained prejudices" from emotions and assumptions.

Julia Gillard became the first ever female Prime Minister of Australia yesterday (that's only taken over one hundred years, *grumble*). It's an acting position whilst Rudd is in Bali (finally a PM who's acting on climate change!) , and one which seems to attract a share of odd events. I've sent her a congratulatory email (the last email conversation we had was a little terse; I was writing on behalf of Labor for Refugees and she was shadow minister for immigration).

Speaking of which, for the second year in a row, I'm desparately trying to organise tickets to Bali again over the break. I've contacted Flight Centre, and they've sent an email confirmation saying their processing the request, but no confirmation yet. Meh. It's been years since I've been to the archipelago, and I really want to see it again. New Zealand is not an option this summer (I think I'll go south for winter). If this doesn't work out for whatever reason maybe a visit to Tasmania is in order; it's been a while since I've seen Murdoch's former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Boyce and we remain in irregular correspondence.

This week I finally managed to finish my review of Earthdawn: Gamemaster's Compendium; it's a huge, stunning book and quite good on the substance level as well. Not so good is the old AD&D module D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth, which is seriously lacking in style, substance and a purpose for existence. Played another session of Legend of the Five Rings last Sunday with a refitted AD&D Oriental Adventures module. It's going very well, if only I can hack out some overall narrative to the various instances of character development and plot leads.

Re: Some guy named Smith

[identity profile] discordia13.livejournal.com 2007-12-12 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
The problem is, and this is where I considered your entire attempt at enlightening them to be trolling... the people that frequent that forum do not care about economics. These are people that want to make money. Taxes are losing money, ergo taxes are bad. Sponsoring taxes makes you a bad person. Thus you trolled em good.

Not withstanding, I do agree with your arguments and analysis of the systems involved - it makes sense on the macro scale. As a multiple property owner however I don't give a rats arse - I'de rather not have the tax at all.

I think all the intelligent discussion had left by page 3 - so thats where I stopped - but did you consider that the last 10-14 years of economics has resulted in most property owners now coming from the lower/mid income groups - who use them as a taxation minimization scheme and revenue generation?
Consequently I believe that in the current environment it's not the rich that pay these taxes - it's everyone else - and all the economists are flawed in the belief that the tax is a good thing - here and now. I'm speculating that raising that tax would have the opposite desired effect on growth - even with other offsets. The Banks would end up owning more.

I could be just talking out of my nether regions with this, but I wonder if anyone has done any studies using the last 10 years data from Australia.

Re: Some guy named Smith

[identity profile] tcpip.livejournal.com 2007-12-12 04:59 am (UTC)(link)

Yeah, but the imposition of a land tax reduces the price of land. For property investors who want a return on housing capital, surely that would be welcome?

Re: Some guy named Smith

[identity profile] discordia13.livejournal.com 2007-12-12 08:09 am (UTC)(link)
If it were that simple. I think you will find the majority of land, developed or otherwise is over valued in the popular areas. Example. Property in Perth CBD has increased in value by nearly 11% in the last 12 months. (Source - My Agent quoting REIWA).

Those sorts of figures are not sustainable. The bubble will burst on it's own shortly. I give it less than 12 months (which is why I'm getting out.)

In real terms I think the only benefit of such a tax would be to force the price of land in populated areas to drop, and the price in regional areas to rise as people move out. I don't think you would see a net drop in land value because you are dealing with humans and they will just adapt to the new system.

Re: Some guy named Smith

[identity profile] tcpip.livejournal.com 2007-12-12 08:18 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, I agree that land is overvalued and the bubble periodically bursts. One of the normal advantages of land-value taxation is that it reduces the size and probability of such a boom/crash cycle. There's been some excellent work on cyclical changes in Australia by Brian Kavanagh of the Land Values Research Group on this very matter.

Why do you think the price of land in regional areas would rise?