In-Reply-To: <001e01c641d9$cd438220$dc6637d2@computer>
Hi Bill.
You ask what is the function of tax ?
Most people in the UK are flabbergasted to be told that the first call
upon our tax system is to pay the interest upon our National Debt :-(((
Hypothecation is NOT a part of our tax system.
Disgusting, but true.
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-3572-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q53.elistas.net (q53.elistas.net [216.66.20.25]) by
mta02.mx.cix.co.uk (8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id k27F0GlE001104
for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:00:16 GMT
Received: (qmail 14187 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2006 16:55:38 +0100
Received: from mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206)
by q5.elistas.net with EMQP; 7 Mar 2006 16:55:38 +0100
Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
Received: (qmail 20060 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2006 12:09:49 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp02.maxnet.net.nz) (202.89.32.10)
by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2006 12:09:49 +0100
Received: from computer (pool102-220.dialip.maxnet.co.nz [210.55.102.220])
by smtp02.maxnet.net.nz (Postfix) with SMTP id 7136F450891
for <socialcredit@elistas.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 00:15:47 +1300
(NZDT)
Message-ID: <001e01c641d9$cd438220$dc6637d2@computer>
From: "W. McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
References: <BAY21-F214F4277209EBAB4B9B5DCBDF70@phx.gbl>
<5d30943b61326c616812a679456d9d8c@geonomics.org>
<001501c63e17$4fa19fc0$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
<2b21814885e1569e2d549ed4a736cde3@geonomics.org>
<000f01c640c1$b2594b20$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
<9548d2be3c3ad52e903f4386ec68b2f9@geonomics.org>
<001c01c641bd$1db7b180$6500a8c0@HAINESCOMPUTER>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 00:25:11 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _jR.BAaDEB.mta02.mx
Hi Everyone
I have observed the various comments on the topic about
land ownership. If land ownership or custodianship attracts a premium in
theform of tax. Can someone tell me what is the purpose of the tax? I have
heard a staggering number of "economists" extolling the necessities of
taxation, but none of them give me the same answer. Can it be that they
don't understand their own discipline? I can always answer my science
queries with logical rational argument easily understood by any intelligent
lay-person why can't they do the same?
any comments?
Bill McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Haines" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> Howdy Jeffery,
>
> Your dividend is based on a community pooling of a tax. The only
difference
> between this and the basic wage is that the central bureaucracy is not
> included in the loop and is replaced by a local beaucracy.
>
> It also smacks a little of the communist philosophy in that the natural
> world belongs to everyone and so any given piece of land will incur a
> penalty on the occupant for excluding the rest of the owners use of the
> same.
>
> Obviously prime commercial and industrial real estate will pay the
highest> penalty and they being good business people will extract it from
those who> will get it back in the dividend which is really localising the
present> system of govt taking with one hand and giving back with the
other. So if> the King or Baron of yester-age had to pay a community tax
for his landswe
> know where the tax money would come from.
>
> Now how do you suppose you can persuade Social Crediters to throw the
baby> ( we produced) out and keep the bath water ( we didnt produce) since
we> propose a dividend of new debt free money not from tax, repesenting
common> ownership ( property of the type that cant be occupied) in the
ever> enhancing social development we as society produced collectively, of
all> kinds over time, rather than the natural world which we didnt produce?
Your
> proposal doesnt compete.
>
> You recognise the hierarchical and democracy issues of the past but dont
> recognise common ownership represented in the S.C. dividend which is
usurped
> by both govt and private hierarchies of today and thus violates a very
> crucial aspect of practical every day democracy when people would vote
and> enjoy freedom by their wallets.
>
> The current system is still based on a privileged hierarchy who dominate
> property, the advantage of legal sanction associated with it and access
to
> credit. The state enjoys its share in this game. The system is unjust
> because it is upside down to what it should be. Your proposal doesnt
turn> this the right side up as the advantage of property and the
associatedlegal
> power would remain dominant.
> Peter H
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffery Smith" <jjs@geonomics.org>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:53 AM
> Subject: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
>
>
> > 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
excludingall
> > 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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
> > 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> 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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message