"We occupied a huge flat overlooking Central Park, where we liked to stroll on mild nights."
-Poul Anderson, "The Sorrow of Odin the Goth" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 333-465 AT 1935, p. 344.
"The elevator raced up sixteen levels to the top, where Mr. and Mrs. Trudeau lived in lavish splendor. Their penthouse rambled over the top two floors and looked out from its many giant windows at Central Park. They had purchased the place for $28 million shortly after their momentous wedding six years earlier, then spent another $10 million or so bringing it up to designer magazine quality. The overhead included two maids, a chef, a butler, his and hers valets, at least one nanny, and of course the obligatory personal assistant to keep Mrs. Trudeau properly organized and at lunch on time."
-John Grisham, The Appeal (London, 2011), Chapter 2, pp. 34-35.
Of course! The Trudeaus have no servant problem. I apologize for spending more time on Grisham's characters than on Anderson's but how could I ignore the millions and the overhead?
Back to the future in the next post, probably.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
If I had 38 million dollars I sure as heck would not spend that kind of money buying a penthouse overlooking Central Park! Esp. now, as NYC sinks into a chaos of crime and disorder because of the idiotic policies of left wing Democrats.
I would far rather buy a house in a nice part of Maui (Hawaii) at a FAR lower price, with plenty left over! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Grisham is good at showing different motivations: self-aggrandizing billionaires as against self-sacrificing street lawyers and ministers of religion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I remember that as well, from the two or three books by Grisham I read. And this reminded me of Tom Wolfe's satirical THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, about life in 1980's NYC.
Ad astra! Sean
Apartments overlooking Central Park used to be a staple of Hollywood's conception of fiction editors and, Ghu help us, secretaries. Probably to the amusement of Gotham.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And posh apartments overlooking Central Park had the advantages of combining upper crust life with nearby lawns, gardens, ponds, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: which was why they were always the preserve of the very affluent. "Location" is one input of fixed amount.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
True! My older brother, before he got sick, used to buy and sell real estate. More than once he told me that "Location, location, location" are the three cardinal rules of the real estate market.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul, Sean, and Mr. Stirling,
“Location, location, and location” — this is why I advocate land value taxation. Taxing land does not reduce the supply of land, and in particular not of prime locations near Central Park. Taxing most other things reduces the supply of them, by discouraging production; but land value taxation combined with the abolition of other tax3s is supply side policy taken to its logical conclusion, which ought to please the decent elements of the Right. Since valuable land is mostly owned by the rich, taxing land makes the distribution of wealth and income more egalitarian, which ought to please the Left.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Nicholas,
I don't think you can please both!
Paul.
Kaor, Nicholas!
I hardly know enough to comment adequately, but I lean to Paul's view, you are not likely to please both left and right. Also, my "instinctive" feeling is that a single tax system seems too "simple" to be workable. The skeptical conservative in me suspects something is always likely to go wrong.
Regards and ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
Something is always likely to go wrong, but some systems, even if things can go wrong, are less bad than others. One thing which has gone wrong is that where land value taxation has been at least partially implemented, it has often been lost because (1) landed interests wanted to make other people share the burdens of government, (2) many people didn’t see why land value taxation was good and important, and (3) leftists didn’t like the non-landed relatively rich getting away with not paying much. This kind of thing happened in Pittsburgh in 2000, and in Britain after World War One, when the small amount of land taxation implemented under Lloyd George was repealed, and landowners were actually refunded the taxes they had paid. There are some other examples.
Still, I’d rather work to do things right, and risk the system being corrupted, than not make any attempt to do things right at all.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
In many ways, such as this issue of land taxing, I am ignorant. Also, a bit puzzled. I already pay a "land tax" every quarter, to my local city, for the little bit of land I own. My understanding is that all land owners, small or large, pay real estate taxes in practically all municipalities of the US. So, I don't quite see where this land tax you advocate comes in.
And, to be frank, I find my real estate taxes burdensome. Esp. when I recall how many of the funds raised that way go to our abominably mismanaged public schools. So I still remain dubious!
Regards and ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
Most jurisdictions in the United States do not have anything approaching land value taxation; instead, they have property taxes on both land and on buildings and other improvements. Taxes on buildings discourage construction, result in less housing, etc., and therefore in higher rents for houses and apartments. Land value taxation does not reduce the supply of land, and therefore does not raise rents.
I do not know the specifics of your situation, but a majority of homeowners pay less with a land-only tax than with a land-and-buildings tax raising the same revenue; most wage-earning homeowners also pay less with land value taxation than with an income or sales tax raising the same revenue.
I’m inclined to agree with you about mismanaged public schools, so, if the government is to be involved at all, I think it should provide vouchers which parents could spend at whatever governmental or private school they thought best for their children.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
Thank you for a fuller explanation of what you meant by a land tax. Compared to the system used by most US jurisdictions, it does seem better than what we now have. Where I still hesitate is the very idea of using taxes to affect how people behave. I would prefer that taxes be used only for those functions legitimately held by a local gov't: police, fire department, water and sewage management, public works.
I see we mostly agree that public schools are mismanaged. And I too like the idea that if gov't is going to be involved at all in education, it should be only thru vouchers parents can use for paying any schools they pick for their children. The POLITICS of bringing about such a system is another matter!
Regards and ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
I haven’t been following the blog lately, I’m sorry to say; the end of the fiscal year approaches, and there are other things to read when I’m not at work. I agree about keeping government to relatively few functions, and not letting it expand too far; I do, however, point out that any taxes, whether on land, on buildings, on incomes, on imports, etc., will affect how people behave. This being so, it makes sense to use taxes to internalize externalities, by charging people for special privileges they enjoy, and giving them incentives to behave so as to reduce burdens and harms they impose on others. Effluent taxes, for example, give people reason to minimize their air pollution, and land value taxation discourages land speculation, and charges people for holding high-value land which they did not create. Such government services as police and fire protection, and road maintenance, raise values in the areas they serve, which is one reason wh6 I think it makes sense to f8nance them by taxing the land values they create.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
Thanks for responding. Basically, what makes me hesitate about the kind of taxes you advocate is the suspicion I have for taxes imposed on people for no better reason than those doing the imposing making subjective, partisan value judgments. Or even what looks like malicious hostility!
Effluent taxes would most likely take the form of increasing taxes on the gasoline purchased for driving cars. Or the oil/coal used for generating heat and electricity. Beyond a certain point, I don't see such taxes doing much good, because of the opposition it would create--and the usual bungling, incompetence, and waste of any gov't. And there would be less point for such taxes if fossil fuels were replaced by nuclear energy and a space based solar power system.
I can see land owners being a charged a non punitive tax to help pay for police/fire protection, and road maintenance.
Regards and ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment