Sorry - I've seen people discussing this a little but held off replying
to this one in particular because of time (I always find that if I get
into a discussion about LVT it takes a while to get people to
understand it - but it's Friday night so what the hey!).
I realise you didn't get the attachment, so I'm happy to assume you
know nothing other than the name about LVT. From what you quote of
Douglas he is not talking about Henry George's Land Value Tax, but a
variety of land based taxes that used to and often continue to apply in
the UK and which are all economically and property destructive as he
points out - LVT is not, in my opinion.
And as one who thinks that he is an LVT and a Social Credit advocate
(though not up to the standard of people on this list in intimate
knowledge of A+B and so on), I see no conflict between the two.
If it makes it easier to understand, the principle of Land Value Tax
could perhaps be better conveyed by the phrase "Community Collection of
Rent" and the mechanism, perhaps especially in the modern, urbanised,
developed world, as "Location Benefit Levy".
In fact - let's not bother to try to duplicate what's already out there
on the web - the "Geo-Libertarian FAQ" I think explains most of the
points far better than I can - and then I can maybe help answer
questions...
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
I think that is better than most anything I could write. But if it
doesn't make sense anywhere, holler.
Jock
On 8 Sep 2005, at 17:34, Jim wrote:
> Hi Dave:
>
> I'm not exactly sure what is the exact nature of a "land value tax",
> because I did not get the attachment either, but I'm pretty sure
> Douglas would have opposed it.
>
> From "The Land for the Chosen People Racket":
>
> "Now there is no room for discussion as to what has caused the
> disastrous state of British land and everyone connected with it. That
> cause is grinding and punitive taxation.
>
> And this taxation has for the most part been concocted either directly
> or indirectly by the London School of Economics—a good deal of it by
> Sir William Beveridge who we are to entrust with the building of our
> New World, “half way to Moscow,” as he puts it so engagingly. An
> understanding of the main principles of current taxation is
> indispensable to anyone who claims to hold views on the future of the
> soil. In the first place, it is necessary to recognise three
> classifications of the surface—agricultural, industrial, and
> residential.
>
> The question of minerals underground is closely interwoven with the
> surface classification, but may be left for subsequent consideration.
> It is a question which, if possible, is less understood by the average
> land agitator than that of the surface.
>
> Now, land taxes begin with a series of recurrent capital levies at
> each inheritance, thinly disguised under the names of Legacy Duty,
> Estate Duty, and so forth. It must be borne in mind that (in spite of
> nearly unworkable alternatives of recent date) these have to be paid
> in money, and land does not grow money. Generally, this money is
> borrowed on mortgage or otherwise. These “Duties” may range from 10
> per cent. in the case of very small properties, to sixty or seventy
> per cent. in the case of very large ones.
>
> In effect, these taxes are confiscatory, consequently whatever is the
> state of the land at the present time, that state is the result of a
> change of effective “ownership.”
>
> Subsequently to the Capital levies paid by the legatee, but not by
> anyone purchasing the land, Income tax at the current rate (now 10/-
> in the £) is paid on the ownership of the land, not on the return it
> makes, but on an arbitrary assessment which goes up if the land is
> improved. This assessment is generally made by the local rating
> authority who levy their own distinct taxes, called Rates, on it ;
> and these go up if the land is improved. But if the owner also
> occupies “his own” property, he pays Schedule B as well as Schedule A
> and Rates, also at the current rate. (The foregoing statements are
> subject to certain modifications in respect of Scotland, and to the
> vagaries of Derating Acts.) In effect, the owner-occupier of his
> “own” property pays, at the present time, more in rates and taxes than
> he would have paid in rates, taxes and rent, sixty years ago, as a
> tenant.
>
> It is a sound legal, as well as common-sense axiom, that a man must be
> presumed to have intended the logical consequences of his actions.
> The logical consequences of the taxation just roughly summarised can
> be seen to be what they have in fact been. They have made the use of
> land for agriculture only precariously possible by treating as soil
> income what is in fact soil capital ; thus fostering overseas imports
> of easily grown food.
>
> They have made the “ownership” of land, as an administrative
> profession, impossible by imposing what is in fact an intolerable
> nationalised rent. And they have made the improvement of real
> property an expensive form of altruistic philanthropy (many landowners
> have accelerated their ruin by persistence in it) by penalising every
> improvement either to site or buildings by an increased assessment, so
> that whoever doesn't get the rent, the tax or rate-collector does."
>
> http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/douglas/land2.html
>
> Further Douglas says:
>
> "So far as the produce of the land is concerned, that is available to
> anyone who has the money. Has anyone suggested that “the People”
> should have the produce of the money-making machine ?
>
> Conversely, do the agitators for common ownership yearn to pay the
> taxes now borne by land ? Ask most of the farmers who bought their
> farms during and immediately after the 1914-1918 war period how they
> like their bargain, from the business point of view. If the older
> conditions of estate management were so unfair to the tenant, how was
> it that farmers' sons had to wait years before they could get a vacant
> farm, and had to be well known to be thoroughly competent farmers, or
> they would never get one ; while nowadays there are hundreds of
> once-famous farms going begging, and every day good farmers are
> throwing in their farms in disgust at the ever rising tide of
> interference without responsibility ?"
>
> http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/douglas/land2.html
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Jim
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Land Value tax
>
> > Didn't get your attachment, but the idea to me has merit.
> >
> > Martin Hattersley
> > 1970-10123-99 St.,
> > EDMONTON AB CANADA
> > e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wetzel Dave" <Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk>
> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:19 AM
> > Subject: [socialcredit] Land Value tax
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Have you considered Land Value Tax together with monetary reform,
> as a
> > > contributor to a half decent society?
> > >
> > > Article from the FT attached, which may interest you.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ***********************************************************************
> ************
> > > The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are
> confidential and
> > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they are
> > > addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any
> > > liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this
> email and
> > > any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended
> recipient be
> > > advised that you have received this email in error and that any
> use,
> > > dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is
> strictly
> > > prohibited.
> > >
> > > If you have received this email in error please notify
> > > postmaster@tfl.gov.uk.
> > >
> > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> for the
> > > presence of computer viruses.
> > >
> ***********************************************************************
> ************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list
> are at
> > > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > > You're subscribed to this list with the email
> hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> > > For more information, visit
> http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date:
> 05/09/2005
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date:
> 05/09/2005
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
> at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email
> jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
--
Jock Coats
At:
Corporate Information Systems, Computer Services,
AG17, Gipsy Lane Campus, Oxford Brookes University,
OX3 0BP
Work: +44 1865 483353
and at:
Wardens' Lodgings, Flat 1e, Block J Morrell Hall,
John Garne Way, OXFORD, OX3 0FF.
Home: +44 1865 485019 Mobile: +44 7769 695767
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message