| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Thursday, March 9, 2006 20:00:07 (+1300) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3578 (written by Jeffery Smith) |
Jeffery said at the end of his last post"
"But then by making life nicer it makes the area more attractive, which
pumps up the site values. If those values are not recovered and shared,
then you merely exacerbate the underlying injustice of owner v noowner".
The only basis upon which this ideal is rational and justified is in
relation to people being out of a place to live due to those more fortunate
by various means to have aquired the limited space.
The major social problem of the world is poverty in the midst of plenty, not
a large percent of people living in every nook and cranny in the back inner
streets of all the cities.
Land use is only one of many factors that are in the making of goods and
providing services that dont get distributed justly. This system recognises
the total communal input into values of land but not what man produces which
is the area of malnutrition, poverty of various kinds, and all the social
ills that are down stream of such. Same cant be said of people who only
rent and may never own property.
One could apply the same narrow view to education and occupations and then
we come to realise that the current system does a similar job anyway when we
compare the amount of taxes certain people pay ( looking at their proterty,
occupationa incomes and their link to education etc) and the taxes are used
by govt to carry the unfortunate, re a psuedo wage ( dole), medical
subsidies etc etc.
By far the greater part of THINGs man is associated with is what he
produces/offeres to do and sells which also has community interest within
it.
One merely has to consider Japan and it land area and compare it with what
it produces and exports. The consider Saidi Arabia with its land mass
unoccupied and producing little. Neither have anything to do with 'justice'
or the social problem of the world- poverty in the midst of plenty.
The reason this system doesnt even begin to compete with Social Credit is it
only wants to apply a same principle as we do to a limited field which
indicates what its underlying philosophy is. In effect this system treats
all land as not being owned but rented and so it shares the same stables are
the communist manifesto and the protocols.
The other point to remember is that not only should the community get a
dividend based on the whole of progress and not just the value of property
going up over time, but the community should also be working less and less
as progress is made. They are not for setting people freer.
This is like a religious cult. Its all logical within the chosen arguments,
like making doctrine out of selective lines denying context and other
similar scriptures. This system is likewise out of context of wider reality
and based on a politcal motive.
PeterH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery Smith" <jjs@geonomics.org>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 10:10 PM, John G Rawson wrote:
>
>> Let's get the first point sorted first. No landowner these days stamps
>> leather with a bull's head opr whatever to create his own money to pay
>> tax.
>>
>> The tax must be paid from money earned through carrying out some
>> commercial activity on the land, or off it if it is only used as a home
>> residence.
>
> Or unearned money, if he's not the one carrying out the commercial
> activity, or not compensating his neighbors for hogging a prime site.
>
>> If he can't charge the cost of the tax into some form of production, he
>> will not have the land long.
>
> No one will. If he can't afford the dues, likely it's over market value,
> and none of his neighbors could, too.
>
>> I don't see much point in going further if you are unable to grasp this
>> point.
>
> There's more than that you don't see.
>
> As to who issues money and do they issue enough, of course, in an unfair
> system, some get money for nothing while others get nothing for earned
> money. Of course, that needs fixing. The problems of failing to share
> socially generated "rents" and of hierarchically issuing currency at cost
> to society both needed addressing, not ignoring. If you had to choose,
> which would you fix? Note that, historically, you have more examples of
> land justice helping more people than money justice doing likewise. For
> instance, where you have community currency, sure, it helps initially. But
> then, by making life nicer, it makes the area more attractive, which pumps
> up site values. If those values are not recovered and shared, then you
> merely exacerbate the underlying injustice of owners vs nonowners.
>
> 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
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message