I do not agree, since it is not consumption tax, accordingly with the definition. Whta you are proposing is a kind of capital tax. I do not have anithing against to, but your face the economic consecuences of taxing "capital". Alexander Guerrero ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Foldvary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:39 AM Subject: Re: Tax with positive growth effect
> --- Alexander Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well before yo tax "idle" land, you must be "sure" that the land > > is "wasted", > > No, the whole rationale for taxing land value is that it does not > matter what the site owner does with the land. Those who "waste" it > will have to pay the same rate as those who maximize rental income. > > > And, believe me, this is something which has been > > always very difficult to assess. > > How do you know? > Insurance companies manage to appraise land value, because they don't > want the insured to collect on that if the building burns down. > > > The big > > question is : Does the land lord like to have idle land? > > If he does, fine; let him pay for that consumption. > > Fred Foldvary > > > ===== > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. > http://personals.yahoo.com
