|
Hi Jack:
I looked that the FAQ url, and I also browsed a
Georgist website. I didn't have time to read them fully, but from what I
gather the problem still remains, and Martin picked up on the problem by
suggesting a dividend would have to be issued to pay the tax.
I assume the tax is a property tax based on the
assessed value of the land? If it is, then the tax is upon an asset, not
income. Because something is valued in $ does not mean that the person who
has the property has the $ to pay the tax. There is a difference between
an asset valued at $100,000 and actually having the $100,000.
I would also like to ask what purpose does the LVT
serve?
Sincerely,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 12:54
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Land Value
tax
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
