| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Thursday, March 9, 2006 21:07:07 (+1300) | | From: | W. McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3580 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
Hi Ken
From your comment I presume your inference is that taxation
results from incompetant spendthrift governments living beyond their means
and having to borrow money from some source to meet a shortfall in their
budget. I see shades of 1789 in that hypothesis. If that is so the whole of
the western economy is on very shaky ground. I hope the politicians
responsible for this mess have steel lined necks. They will need them to
survive. Gullotines are very sharp, heavy and efficient.
Incidently I don't disagree with your comment. I have known for a long
time that debt servicing is absorbing a greater and greater proportion of
any government's revenue intake. In most cases at the expense of welfare
services to the needy. What a way to run a world?
BillMc G
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> 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