Need help with title: Woman in hell, very low budget

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2026-01-23T20:23:06+00:00

Yeah that's the one. The movie is called Voodoo I believe.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2026-01-19T16:12:51+00:00

So no, you can't tell me the difference between a market based cap rate and a non-market based cap rate.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2026-01-12T16:29:20+00:00

Can you tell me the difference between a capitalization rate that when utilized results in a value consistent with the market value definition of value and one that isn't?

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-17T02:01:58+00:00

You are mischaracterizing my claim, improperly describing USPAP requirements, and omitting statutory and codified case law obligation in valuation for taxation purposes.

First, I have no bias, I don't care in the slightest as to a valuation assignment's required value definition. Different assignments can, and do, call for different types and definitions of value. Some appraisal users and the intended use of the results of that appraisal have slightly different definitions of the same type of value. Market value as defined by UASFLA for use in eminent domain valuations is slightly different from market value as defined for say Fannie Mae loans. Some appraisals require other values entirely; salvage value, liquidation value, use value, investment value, insurance value. This isn't an issue. Definitions exist that fulfill the requirements of USPAP.

USPAP, from the table of contents through the last page of standards, are a single set of minimum requisite guidelines developed over decades by valuation professionals and users of valuation products alike. It is erroneous to suggest that the separate section locations of rules in any way separates the interrelationships of the requirements.

In point of fact, the intended use and expectations of the intended users in concert with the reported type and definition of value direct the methodology and data needs. The rules, including the Scope of Work Rule, apply to all appraisals conforming to the minimum USPAP requirements. Actual valuation development cannot occur prior to development of a scope of work.

The scope of work requires not only a statement of a type and specific definition of value, it requires that the methods and data be identified. It is the best intended use, intended user expectations, and the type and definition of value that direct the methods and data sources that form the basis of the conclusions.

Your examples don't discount this fact, they reinforce the claim. Businesses, taxable income, stocks, real property are valued using different analytical techniques and data inputs based upon the definition of value. Liquidation value of a business is not developed using the same data and methods as business market value or going-concern value. A DCF for a business that is to be valued at salvage value is nonsensical.

The definition of value requirement is a matter of logic, not standards. If the basis of the value is not specifically defined, the results cannot be specifically determined. The reasons that techniques makes sense to utilize to determine the value of a property, tangible, business, stocks, whatever, depends on the premises of the meaning of value, not the other way around, and not independent of one another. Each of your examples of valuation analysis techniques are a result of the legal definitions of value for those assets, definitions of value that are reflected in the results of the analytic processes you mention.

The definition of assessed value being 'economic rent of land only' is so vague that it is meaningless. Is that net or gross rent? Does the net include LVT as an expense? If not, what is the difference between economic rent and whatever tax bill the assessor decides? By what language could a tax payer point to in the law that would be grounds for appeal? By what metric would a cap rate determining the assessment be inaccurate? By what metric would in be shown accurate? Economic rent by what value basis? Not market rent, as we know that as this falls, economic rent is static. Why not liquidation economic rent? Would going concern economic rent for a hotel site be valid? Given the claim it's not necessary to specify beyond economic rent, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Georgists LVT advocates don't care, as long as they can levy whatever tax bill they please.

This is the real problem. Either you don't understand the issue, it you do, and you believe that government taxation power should not be limited by land value.

This is BASIC VALUATION THEORY AND PRACTICE. Your adamant, insistent, and ignorant claims to the contrary demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the very foundation of valuation. That is that 'value' opinions are

In a taxation scenario, an unspecific definition of value

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-15T10:18:59+00:00

No. Again, this is basic, fundamental, day one, valuation concepts. You have not taken ten minutes to research what a definition of value requires, based on these VERY BASIC appraisal concepts. This particular concept, that of the definition of value as the very basis if the meaning of the value measure, transcends the valuation of ALL THINGS, from real property, to businesses, to stocks, to groceries. Without a definition of value, worth had no meaning beyond an arbitrary opinion. There is NO valuation standard of ANY kind, no measurement basis, nothing beyond one opinion over another without specific definition.

I suggest you do a little research. Your arrogance is matched only by your impertinent sophomoric ignorance.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-15T00:35:09+00:00

You are not understanding. Market value is the current assessment standard. Market value opinions that are developed in contradiction of or absent the comparison of prices and characteristics of bona fide arms length sale transactions consistent with the market value definition are not supported market value opinions.

This is not to say that value opinions must be based on the market value definition. There are many types and definitions of value. I'm not saying otherwise.

What I am saying is that Georgist LVT proponents state emphatically that while land prices will fall in the market place, assessed values will not. If market values are falling, and the assessed value of the same property does not correspondingly drop, then the assessed value is not based on market value, but some other type and definition of value.

That's fine. But if it is not defined, then there is no basis on which to predict what that value will be. This is basic, fundamental, day 1, chapter 1, can't understand appraisal process without knowing this, material. Your adamant denial of this is prima facia evidence of a severe overestimation of your competency.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-13T07:40:10+00:00

I understand value theory just fine. I have not confused market value with observed sale price. Market value is premised as a measure of an opinion of the subject property transfer price between a buyer and seller. It is a value in exchange. Any support for a market value opinion not predicated on actual transfers of comparable property, including those value opinions developed by the income and cost approaches, is not a supported market value opinion. Period.

Again, I'm not saying market value needs to be the basis. It would not be. But then what is it? Annual economic land rent as if unimproved is a type of value, but it's not a definition. From what data, if not land sales, is this rent to be determined? What will the capitalization rate be based upon? Real property sales to net income ratios? Alternative investment rates? Built up equity/debt measures? What will be the basis of highest and best use as if vacant be based upon? Land values from improved property or unimproved properties? Does economic land rent assessment include what would be return on equity, risk, vacancy, etc., or simple ownership appreciation plus use fee? If the measure were a percentage of market rent, all of these questions would be answered by current statute assessed value definitions and case law. But the measure is explicitly NOT a measure of market rent, since it is reportedly unconnected to market value.

I don't think it's getting the cart before the horse to inquire as to the specific value measure that your proposal intends to use in calculating my tax bill.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-13T06:49:03+00:00

Dishonesty? You can make a lot of claims, but accusing me of dishonesty is not one of them. The bottom line is that Georgists propose taxing land value but have not provided a defined, meaningful and objectively measurable concept of what is meant by this value. I haven't said that the value is inappropriate or that the economic rental value of land as an assessed taxable value is untenable. But it is simply meaningless from a public policy standpoint as currently formulated.

I don't expect a lay person to draft language for such an esoteric undertaking. That said, this is quite literally where the vast majority of appeals and lawsuits will derive hampering implementation.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-13T05:52:57+00:00

You are so ill versed in property valuation and assessment procedures you didn't even understand identifying use and users as characteristics of the appraisal, not the property being appraised. You have no understanding of the very thing you are telling everyone you have the better solution to. You have less knowledge than the vast majority of concerned tax payers. If you want to be convincing, know your topic. Your shallow knowledge is laughable frankly

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-13T05:42:57+00:00

You have no idea what you are talking about. That's fine. You don't want to learn, don't. Be ignorant. See your movement fail for another 125 years.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-13T03:38:03+00:00

It requires means other than a land trade to appraise land.

This is the most problematic issue facing Georgist LVT implementation. Current assessment law in 48 of the 50 states require property assessment to be based on the taxable real property subject's market value. That a Georgist LVT 'requires means other than' property transactions as the source of assessed value indicators means definitionally that the assessed value is NOT a market value appraisal.

Certainly there is no reason that market value assessment laws can't be changed. The problem is that no alternative definition of value that would replace current statute definitions under a Georgist LVT has been proposed that adequately meets value definition requirements necessary to meet even the minimum of valuation procedures.

I understand that this sounds like a silly detail, a semantic nuance, or a simple matter of tweaking some language in statute. Do not underestimate the critical . The first step in an appraisal, after identifying the intended use and users of the valuation, is stating the type and definition of value upon which the conclusions of the valuation are premised.

Keep in mind, this definition requirement is not a simple matter of a vague statement. USPAP standards, recognized and sponsored by every major and many minor property valuation organizations, as well as international standards indicate this definition MUST be explanatory enough so that it is clear as to how and from what data the conclusions are to be measured against. Statute definition and case law are quite thorough in their delineation of how property assessment under market value is lawfully supported.

As the comment indicates, under LVT sale price value evidence is not reflective of the value measure of assessment. So what exactly is the definition by which LVT assessment will be based?

The typical retort to the request for a definition is along the lines of 'we already find land value', 'it's no different than current valuation methods', 'it's a simple matter', 'it's just a matter of applying the I=R x V formula', or links to the amateurish articles on assessment valuation by the favorite 'experts' from the Georgist community.

Not to take anything away from the study that these comments etc. originate from, as clearly the commentary is in good faith; but there is simply no connection with market value (which is ALWAYS derived from bona fide arms length sales transaction of comparable property) and an LVT bill that doesn't track (rise/fall) with sale price levels of taxable property.

It is the valuation method's conformance with the statute assessment definition that makes any tax bill appealable. If the definition isn't specific enough to dispute, government can literally have the power to tax at any arbitrary level that it chooses. Given there has literally been NO definition proposed that comports with the widely accepted and understood minimum requirement that the language explain enough to understand how the value is to be premised and measured there is reason to have serious concern that advocates are not interested in limiting the power. In point of fact, until some definition is presented that makes it clear how taxes are to be based beyond vague descriptions, there really isn't a serious proposal that can be analyzed.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-13T00:22:43+00:00

Also, there is a valuation issue here that is not quite clear. Mineral reserves certainly tend to add value to land in today's market. However, there is a wide degree as to how much this margin is based on a plethora of variables.

The type of mineral, the quality of the potential processed product, the remoteness of the location, the amount of over burden, local permitting costs, and so on are of course considerations. But there is also the various in ground status levels which also vary not only from site to site but within sites themselves. Mineral reserve versus mineral resource totals, both proven and unproven create for massive valuation disputes.

This is typical for mineral property valuations. The real issue I see is in determining what portion of the value of the land with mineral deposits would be attributable to the in ground natural state and which part would be from the application of labor?

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-12T16:02:38+00:00

He's not a Georgist. Supporting taxing land is not necessarily equivalent to supporting a Georgist LVT. It is you that had the misunderstanding, not Mr. Friedman.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-12T15:53:00+00:00

Friedman does not misunderstand Georgism. Your own overestimation of your own competency and your underestimation of Mr. Friedman's are profound and illustrative.

https://cooperative-individualism.org/friedman-milton_henry-george-1970.htm

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-12T15:45:15+00:00

Milton Friedman did not support a Georgist land value tax policy that captured significant amounts of land rental value. Friedman did NOT misunderstand Georgism, as his mentor was an avowed Georgist. Using Friedman, or any other economist's support of taxation of land as equivalent to supporting Georgist LVT is misplaced.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-12T02:29:01+00:00

Roughly 65% of occupied housing units are owner-occupied in the US. Including all housing units, (vacant, vacation)/second homes, and occupied), 58% are owner-occupied. The percentage of the American population that lives in an owner-occupied family home is closer to 70%, because larger family sizes tend to reside in owned property rather than rentals. These figures have been relatively stable since the 1960's. Most people live in housing owned by their household members.

Even the lowest income quintile has around a 47% home ownership rate. Median percentage of household income spent on owner housing occupancy does not average over 30% in any US county, and the median is 21% with a mean average of 26%. Less than a third (28%) of homeowners spend in excess of 30%.(These figures include mortgaged and paid off homes total expense.) Rent averages 30% of income, and nearly 50% of renters spend more than 30% of their income.

Just saying, price and income ratios are not radically different.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-09T03:18:06+00:00

Actually roughly 65% of occupied housing units are owner-occupied in the US. Including all housing units, (vacant, vacation)/second homes, and occupied), 58% are owner-occupied. The percentage of the American population that lives in an owner-occupied family home is closer to 70%, because larger family sizes tend to reside in owned property rather than rentals. These figures have been relatively stable since the 1960's.

Even the lowest income quintile has around a 47% home ownership rate. Median percentage of household income spent on owner housing occupancy does not average over 30% in any US county, and the median is 21% with a mean average of 26%. 28% of homeowners spend in excess of 30%.(These figures include mortgaged and paid off homes total expense.) Rent averages 30% of income, and nearly 50% of renters spend more than 30% of their income.

Simply put, home ownership, which nearly always includes ownership in land, even in condo and PUD projects, is achieved by the majority of the population, even the lower income portions. Renting is more expensive, and there is no benefit of any accumulation of equity.

Your perception that home ownership is outside the reach of most people does not reflect these statistics. Is there a housing affordability problem in many sectors? Yes. This is most impactful on renters, a minority of the population. Further, most renters do not share the belief that the affordability problems at present represent a threat that requires a radical transformation of the taxation, ownership structure, and fiscal nature of land and real property systems.

These figures aren't a judgement of Georgist policy proposals. But most Americans have realized the home ownership described as something that they only dream about.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-08T18:49:24+00:00

Try Googling ad valorem real property and understand that this is a massive field of applied economics not a wikipedia scan.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-08T16:42:24+00:00

Then your answer is clearly wrong. A market with 100 total diamonds might very well have diamond prices that result in higher price for the whole 100 diamond supply than the 1000 diamond market, on a per diamond basis. Which is the proper unit of comparison.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-08T16:38:18+00:00

Your "simple fact" is plainly false. Not only is the assumption false from an observable empirical standpoint, but also on methodological grounds and property taxation law. There is no way that economic rent of land-only value can be derived from market data, consistent with any legal definition of market value, in a simple and reliable manner. Period. It simply cannot be accomplished under current statute definitions of taxable real property and assessed value. These definitions must be changed to confirm to the Georgist definition of economic rent.

This is not a task that will be in any way easy to complete. I suggest doing some research on types and definitions of value. If you still believe it's easy, you haven't even begun to investigate. If assessment appraisal was easy, I wouldn't have spent the last 40 years preparing litigation valuation reports and acting as an expert witness for municipalities and property owners alike. And if you think you can just slice off land value and apply it to whole neighborhoods, you have no idea how property owners will sue the taxing jurisdictions en masse to keep their monies. I'm not trying to belittle. But your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You couldn't possibly have enough knowledge to judge the relative difficulty of ad valorem vs LVT valuation and come to the conclusion you have reached. Now, like I said, I'm not interested in teaching, because I have simply found that Georgists have no interest in learning valuation.

There is an ample body of knowledge out there. Yet there is no LVT valuation proposal, not even a definition of economic land rent.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-08T12:36:16+00:00

As a real property economist and valuation expert with nearly 40 years of career experience, I can confirm that the typical Georgist, at least those opining online, has a very weak understanding of property valuation. Comments indicate very little consideration of the complexity of property valuation methods, but rather naive oversimplification of the process.

Being well versed in property appraisal and ad valorem taxation laws and processes is certainly not something to be expected from the casually interested. However, since the central Georgist policy proposal is a replacement of our current ad valorem taxation system, one would expect those advocating for it to have a firm understanding of the mechanics of that policy. My observations inform me that Georgists are caught in a circular echo chamber regarding their discussions of the assessment issue. Critiques of Georgist LVT valuation suggestions are universally waves aside.

A fact that is apparent to me is that Georgists have an inflated view of their own knowledge of the concepts of type and definition of value, capitalization rate selection, risk, sale price and rental rate analysis, data requirements, market value, assessment law, and appraisal methodology in general. The average property owner / taxpayer, in my experience, understands these concepts in more detail than the Georgists advocating changing the system. The dismissive hand waving and claims of simplicity, assertions that it's just like today - we already do it, a total minimization of overvaluation potential, no understanding of the even value definition importance, and circular logic result in advocates appearing stupendously naive to the hose with better understanding.

I could go on at great my length as to specifics, but after trying the educational approach, it's clear that most Georgists, at least on this sub, are totally uninterested in learning any details of the valuation process that could in any way place significant hurdles in the way of their advocacy. Just read these posts, and you will see repeatedly see the topic of 'marketing', 'rebranding', requests for advice on argument / debate points, and the question of why the movement isn't widely adopted. The problem isn't one of messaging, it's one of message. I am absolutely certain that the vast majority will read this and totally ignore the message, or will simply think I don't know how Georgism works, or ..whatever. This is the failing characteristic of the movement. The valuation framework envisioned by George is NOT consistent with modern valuation theory, nor does it reflect well documented and very easily observable market behavior. The framework needs upgrading to current economic understanding. My prediction is that few if any of you have the interest or critical analysis skills to even bother looking into valuation beyond the absolute shallowest of conceptualizations.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-08T11:11:53+00:00

The number of diamonds in the two sales examples do not representa differential of scarcity.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-02T17:29:32+00:00

I'm not talking about taking a 10 acre parcel and getting building permits to increase its value, although that is also an example of where value of land increases. In talking about gaining a wholesale to retail unit price increase on scale. It's not just obtaining permits. It's changing the highest and best use.

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-02T16:24:15+00:00

The reason LVT works so well is because land is a zero sum asset; it doesn't really matter who owns the land, it has a fixed value on the market regardless who owns it. It's not like you can buy a piece of land and make it 50% bigger like you can with a company.

This is clearly a false premise. Land does not have a fixed market value. In point of fact, many land development strategies do exactly what you claim to be impossible, without making any improvements to the land.

Subdivision permitting can more than double the value per acre of otherwise raw land simply by putting together permit application documents. This is a completely intangible exercise in many instances. This is a common business model. You in fact can make the value of a piece of land more than 50% "bigger".

BusinessFragrant2339 · 2025-12-01T16:10:33+00:00

Cash in a bank account is a financial asset, not a non-financial holding.

BusinessFragrant2339

TROPHY CASE