eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
      HOME    SERVICES    SOLUTIONS    COMPANY    
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 261 to 320 
SubjectFrom
Re: Re: Question f Swieto R
(no subject) Per Almg
Re: Re: Question f Per Almg
Re: (Social Credit Joe Thom
Re: Re: Question f Joe Thom
Re: criminal consp Swieto R
John Zube of Austr Levi Phi
(no subject) Per Almg
Re: criminal consp Timothy
Re: Re: (Social Cr martinh
labor displacement william_
"death gamble" william_
Re: "death gamble william_
Fwd: Re:- Wally william_
Re: A+B Theorem william_
In Reply to Joe Th william_
Re: In Reply to Jo Joe Thom
Re: Balanced Budge Joe Thom
Re: Balanced Budge Joe Thom
Re: Balanced Budge martinh
Re:- update on Wal Joe Thom
Re: Question for M Joe Thom
the reality? william_
ANNOUNCEMENT: The william_
Re: the reality? John Her
Re: Question for M martinh
Elaboration--Re: Q Joe Thom
Re: the reality? Levi Phi
Re: the reality? william_
Re: the reality? Jessop S
Re: the reality? william_
Re: Elaboration--R martinh
Re: Elaboration--R Joe Thom
Re: the reality? - Jessop S
Re: the reality? - Jessop S
Re: the reality? - william_
Re: the reality? - socred
Re: the reality? - Joe Thom
Re: the credit the william_
Re:- (social credi Joe Thom
Re: the reality? - Jessop S
Re: the reality? - Joe Thom
Re: the reality? - Joe Thom
Re: the reality? - Jessop S
Douglas at Fearnan william_
Re: Douglas at Fea Wallace
Re: the credit the william_
To Kevin Cahill william_
Re: To Kevin Cahil william_
Aberhart audio cli william_
Re: Re: the credit martinh
Re: Re: the credit william_
Walbert Silver Gol Levi Phi
Re: the credit the william_
Creditory Economic Levi Phi
Zarlenga Monetary Levi Phi
Re: OWNERSHIP: Own william_
RE: OWNERSHIP: Own Ed Dodso
RE: OWNERSHIP: Own william_
Re: OWNERSHIP: Own william_
 << Prev. 60 | Next 60 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 326     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:[socialcredit] Re: OWNERSHIP: Ownership transfer
Date:Monday, November 29, 2004  07:51:53 (-0800)
From:william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>

Kevin, I've excerpted some paragraphs from your most
recent post, which I've appended below.

You may have noticed that many list members are
influenced by the theories of Henry George.  There is
a larger group of members influenced by Louis Kelso. 
There are a few dissenters, like me.  There are also
a few (apparently very few) credentialed professional
economists, like Keith Wilde, who sometimes play the
role of "devil's advocates" to stimulate discussion. 
There is probably a "silent majority" who never post
but are merely curious.

In regards to finance, the Georgists and Kelsoists
share the same antiquated ideas regarding the
seemingly familiar terms, "rent" and "interest."  I'm
sure you have noticed.  They regard the private
collection of either as evil ipso facto, something to
stamp out.  The exception they support is collection
by government, where "rent" and "interest" is called
taxation.  It is a rather fascist attitude, I think.

But it is the availability of the home mortgage that
has transformed modern economies more than anything
else, in my opinion.  And that has emanated from the
inherently "evil" financial sector, with governmental
assistance and oversight.

In the United States it is mostly a post World War 2
phenomenon, spurred by guaranteed low interest
mortgages for returning veterans of the armed forces. 
Later came FHA guaranteed loans available to
everyone.  Quasi-governmental entities like Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac played a part.  Several states
also have grant and loan programs.

I want you to tell us more specifically how the
process occurred in Britain, and especially, Ireland. 
Before seeing your stuff, I had not imagined its
dramatic transformation.

Thanks.

Bill

----------------------
-------------------
Kevin Cahill, November 29

But the overwhelming difference between past and
present are mortgage payments and what they mean.

69% of UK homes are owned now. (Only 30% of families
pay rent.) The revenue streams associated with the
69% of homes that are privately owned are mortgage
payments. Those payments are not rent. They are a
purchase transaction. The mortgage payer is buying a
significant capital asset. Domestic dwellings are now
the most significant fixed capital asset in the UK,
worth £3 trillion, three times the value of the whole
annual economic turnover. Business fixed capital
assets are worth perhaps £2 trillion. And this is
another vital fact. After a period of time, those
fixed domestic assets cease to have a mortgage
liability attached. They become free capital assets.
This affects 28% of the UK domestic dwelling asset
stock now. And it is a figure which rises over time,
another fact not even digested by economists in the
UK. This fact, about mortgage payments being a
purchase transaction, not a rental transaction, seems
to be missed by many of the participants in this
discussion. It is the dominant private revenue flow
in at least the economies of America, Japan, the UK,
Ireland, Spain and Italy.

That fact transforms the heart of economics in the
western economies, both in relation to the historic
situation, and the current situation. It makes
bizarre this attempt to tax people on the basis of
imputed rent. By going that way about it, advocates
of such schemes always wind up trying to tax capital
gains out of current revenues. In turn, the advocates
of land taxes are forced to create an additional debt
associated with a property, that is neither
acceptable, logical nor necessary.
-
 



Globalnet mail uk <ros@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
Radu,

While taking careful note of the comment in another part of this discussion
on rents that are hidden in GDP/GNI statistics, rents no longer dominate
economics and are a minor revenue flow in the overall system. To give you an
example. In 1872, at the time of the 2nd Domesday, 96% of all British
families paid rent. Agriculture was a significant industry and its backbone
were the rents paid by peasants and tenants. In the UK in 1872 less than
3,000 families got more than 80% of the rental revenue of the country. In
the UK agriculture now has turnover of about £15bn, in a trilllion dollar
economy, and that £15bn costs £4bn in subsidies to support. One third of UK
agriculture pays rent of about £1.3bn, a tiny amount in the scheme of
things.

But the overwhelming difference between past and present are morgtage
payments and what they mean.

69% of UK homes are owned now. (Only 30% of families pay rent.) The revenue
stream associated with the 69% of homes that are privately owned are
morgtage payments. Those payments are not rent. They are a purchase
transaction. The morgtage payer is buying a significant capital asset.
Domestic dwellings are now the most significant fixed capital asset in the
UK, worth £3 trillion, three times the value of the whole annual economic
turnover. Business fixed capital assets are worth perhaps £2 trillion. And
this is another vital fact. After a period of time, those fixed domestic
assets cease to have a morgtage liability attached. They become free capital
assets. This affects 28% of the UK domestic dwelling asset stock now. And it
is a figure which rises over time, another fact not even digested by
economists in the UK. This fact, about morgtage payments being a purchase
transaction, not a rental transaction, seems to be missed by many of the
participants in this discussion. It is the dominant private revenue flow in
at least the economies of America, Japan, the UK, Ireland, Spain and Italy.
That fact transforms the heart of economics in the western economies, both
in relation to the historic situation, and the current situation. It makes
bizzare this attempt to tax people on the basis of imputed rent. By going
that way about it, advocates of such schemes always wind up trying to tax
capital gains out of current revenues. In turn, the advocates of land taxes
are forced to create an additional debt associated with a property, that is
neither acceptable, logical nor neccessary. In the UK up to 80% of local
administration costs are met out of national revenues. In the USA, local
communities are expected to raise almost all revenues, which is why the
issue is acute in the US. The way the US works ignores the fact that the
revenue requirements in local communities are federally dictated, directly
or indirectly, but not paid for out of federal revenues. This is why the US
is able to maintain the largest armed force in the world, at the expense of
its ordinary citizens, most of whom are less than happy to be tax payers for
a new Empire. Always remember that the Roman Empire emerged from the Roman
republic.
Regards Kevin

Kevin


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Ownership transfer


Radu replying to Kevin:

Kevin,
I generally agree with you, I do not put as much emphasis on land as on
productive assets in general. I am not sure what you mean by "rent is dead".
Also the statistics you included in your message are about land ownership or
wealth in general? Any way, are you OK with the situation or do you think it
ought to change?

My best wishes
Radu Seserman

Kevin's message

Radu,

People jump up and down because 1% of the population own 49% of Brazil. 0.6%
of the UK population own 69% of the UK, now there is concetration for you.
In Spain, I think its about 0.2% of the population, almost all titled,
definately own 70%, and may own as much as 80% of the country.
Some countries in Europe, France and Denmark, limit the size of farms, and
have other restrictions. But there are still big estate on the continent, in
Germany and Austria especially, where there was no confiscation of Nazi
estates after the war. So yes, there are places which have limited the
extent of ownership, but not with clear results. The real world problem is
that people cluster around urban areas, putting presssure on a very small
amount of ground, and all focus inwards, never looking at all the land close
by. Greater London has 200 or 300 farms inside its boundries.
But a lot of the solutions coming from academic economists and the Georgists
are dialectical, argument driven. They very seldoms associate figures with
the argument and the Georgists have to reinvent the concept of rent, which
is a secondary revenue stream in the real capitalist economies and certainly
in the UK and Ireland. If there is no rent, you cant tax rent. And if land
is not generating revenue, or enough revenue to pay for the budget, you cant
tax such non existent revenues. rent is dead. Purchase of assets, which is
what morgtage payments are, is what happens in the the post industrial
economies. The assets purchased produce no revenue. They are for living in.
They can only be taxed at the marginal level, because the tax falls on the
other income of the owner, who has no revenue from the asset. Much of the
academic argument is semantic - words are used to creat attributes that the
reality does not possess. This is very dangerous when your talking taxes to
revenue hungry governments.
Kevin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com





Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service