| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Monday, March 6, 2006 23:50:30 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3566 (written by Jeffery Smith) |
Aren't we losing sight of the fact that the only immediate source of the money
required to pay a land tax is the customer to whom the landowner supplies a good
or service? Unless, of course, he borrows created money from a bank for the
purpose.
Any such tax must simply inflate the prices of goods and services by at least
its value, or destroy the enterprise carried out on the land.
Have a look at the effects of high rates (some call them local taxes) on
established business areas where the land value is going through the roof.
Regards. John R.
From: Jeffery Smith <jjs@geonomics.org>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject:
[socialcredit] Rent for everyone
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:53:44 -0800
>On
Mar 5, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Joe Thomson wrote:
>>
>> (Jeff Smith:-) (land) Wasn't
exactly scare before then, just
>>hoarded.
>>>>
>> (Joe comments:-) Yes, and
look at HOW it was hoarded. By the
>>imposition
>>of a 'tax' on the LAND
ITSELF
>>>
>>(Jeff Smith replies:-) Please cite a time and place.
>>
>>(Joe responds:-)
The various land 'clearances' in parts of the
>>British Isles around the dawn of
the Industrial Revolution, for
>>one.
>
>First, you said a tax resulted in
hoarding. Yet the example involves
>no tax, merely a governmental proclamation. A tax, historically
>indicated by
the experiences of places from California to Taiwan,
>has just the opposite
result - breaking up latifundia.
>
>>What was done, was done by a form of 'tax'
on land itself.
>
>Neither a tax or a "tax" but a simple take-over.
>
>>(Joe
responds:-) Did the peasantry of ancient Egypt 'hoard' land
>>before the time of
Joseph? I don't think so.
>
>Think about, instead, what anthropologists and
historians tell us.
>That is, the local leaders, such as chiefs and priests,
each year
>parceled out sites to families, initially rotating the best sites
>among all the families.
>
>> Each used what he could use.
>
>Actually,
authorities write that each family - not individual - used
>what
was assigned.
>
>> But the tax imposed on them by Joseph certainly had the
ultimate
>>effect of hoarding 'their' land right into the hands of he who
>>operated ''in the name of" Pharaoh. Maybe you think that was a
>>'good'
thing?
>
>Since you do such a poor job of guessing what people think, why not
>give it up?
>
>>(Jeff continues:-) The introduction of a tax on land value
has
>>always broken up latifundia.
>>
>>(Joe responds:-) I disagree. It often
concentrates it further. Go
>>back to 'feudal' England after the Norman conquest
of 1066.
>>Starting with William the Conqueror's 'Domesday Book', we began to
>>see a 'tax' imposed on land value. For was it not King John's
>>attempt to
further 'tax' the Baron's lands on threat of
>>dispossession that led to their mass revolt, and the Magna Carta?
>>The
first instance of a long struggle against arbitrary 'taxation'.
>
>A tax set
arbitrarily is not a tax set by land value. The former is
>by political fiat,
the latter by the market. A tax set that collects
>the annual value of a
location and no more is fair and affordable; a
>tax that goes over that is
unfair, unaffordable, and does
>concentrate land into the hands of those passing
the laws. So there
>are separate issues. One, who deserves the value of land?
(Ans: the
>society creating the land's value). Two, how much should the
>owner(s) pay their neighbors (ans: the annual value, no more).
>Three, who
should administer the collection of land dues? (Ans: not
>a lord or any one high
up in a hierarchy but a local
democracy).
>
>>'ownership' over land
>
>"Own" and "owe" and "ought" used to be
one word.
>
>>But a 'tax' on it, threatening dispossession if not paid, is still
>>a tyranny.
>
>Depends on the tax, whether it's fair or not. Another tyranny,
far
>more common today, is to hoard the socially-generated value.
>
>>And what
some of the 'Georgists' propose looks to me like something
>>that could easily
evolve into that ultimate tyranny.
>
>Please look again. In the Middle Ages when
the only tax levied was
>one on land (mainly) and government was exceedingly
hierarchical, of
>course you sometimes had abuse in assessing a site's value, in
>exempting the rich, etc. The problem was not trying to recover
>compensation for excluding all others from a parcel of nature,
the
>problem was hierarchy and zero democracy. Don't toss the baby with
>the
bathwater. Since then, every introduction of a tax on land value
>has created
more freedom and democracy, not less, as you can see at
>our website.
>
>>now
you're going to vest title
>
>You're far too comfortable with distortion.
attributing to others
>your own fears. Please work on that.
>
>> to ALL real
property
>
>You know where "real" comes from - "royal".
>
>>in an abstraction
called ''the STATE'', or "the GOVERNMENT', or
>>"the PUBLIC".
>
>False, again.
Paying land dues does not change how much one pays but
>to whom, from a seller
or lender to one's neighbors - land dues into
>the common kitty, rent dividends
back.
>
>>If one can't be totally as 'secure'
as possible on one's 'OWN' land
>
>OWED land
>
>>, held under the form of title
that is most 'common' (known), and
>>commonly desired by most of us~ as
individual OWNERS
>
>OWERS
>
>> of individual properties with tenancy-for-life
and statutory
>>rights of disposition to our heirs, just where can we be
secure?
>
>In a geonomy. Even without the rent dividend (which you constantly
>overlook), every place that has a land tax today (e.g., Australia)
>has
higher owner occupancy than places that have little or no tax on
>land (e.g.,
Latin America) or buildings (which is a bad tax, but
>common stand
in).
>
>SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
>7536 SE Milwaukie Av,
Portland Oregon 97202 USA
>503/232-1337; jjs@geonomics.org;
www.geonomics.org
>Share Earth's worth to prosper and
conserve.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN
Careers
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message