|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
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 <email@example.com>
[socialcredit] Rent for everyone
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:53:44 -0800
Mar 5, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Joe Thomson wrote:
>> (Jeff Smith:-) (land) Wasn't
exactly scare before then, just
>> (Joe comments:-) Yes, and
look at HOW it was hoarded. By the
>>of a 'tax' on the LAND
>>(Jeff Smith replies:-) Please cite a time and place.
The various land 'clearances' in parts of the
>>British Isles around the dawn of
the Industrial Revolution, for
>First, you said a tax resulted in
hoarding. Yet the example involves
>no tax, merely a governmental proclamation. A tax, historically
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.
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,
>parceled out sites to families, initially rotating the best sites
>among all the families.
>> Each used what he could use.
authorities write that each family - not individual - used
>> But the tax imposed on them by Joseph certainly had the
>>effect of hoarding 'their' land right into the hands of he who
>>operated ''in the name of" Pharaoh. Maybe you think that was a
>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
>>always broken up latifundia.
>>(Joe responds:-) I disagree. It often
concentrates it further. Go
>>back to 'feudal' England after the Norman conquest
>>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
further 'tax' the Baron's lands on threat of
>>dispossession that led to their mass revolt, and the Magna Carta?
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?
>society creating the land's value). Two, how much should the
>owner(s) pay their neighbors (ans: the annual value, no more).
should administer the collection of land dues? (Ans: not
>a lord or any one high
up in a hierarchy but a local
>>'ownership' over land
>"Own" and "owe" and "ought" used to be
>>But a 'tax' on it, threatening dispossession if not paid, is still
>Depends on the tax, whether it's fair or not. Another tyranny,
>more common today, is to hoard the socially-generated value.
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
>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,
>problem was hierarchy and zero democracy. Don't toss the baby with
bathwater. Since then, every introduction of a tax on land value
more freedom and democracy, not less, as you can see at
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
>You know where "real" comes from - "royal".
>>in an abstraction
called ''the STATE'', or "the GOVERNMENT', or
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
>>If one can't be totally as 'secure'
as possible on one's 'OWN' land
>>, held under the form of title
that is most 'common' (known), and
>>commonly desired by most of us~ as
>> of individual properties with tenancy-for-life
>>rights of disposition to our heirs, just where can we be
>In a geonomy. Even without the rent dividend (which you constantly
>overlook), every place that has a land tax today (e.g., Australia)
higher owner occupancy than places that have little or no tax on
Latin America) or buildings (which is a bad tax, but
>SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
>7536 SE Milwaukie Av,
Portland Oregon 97202 USA
>Share Earth's worth to prosper and
introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
>You're subscribed to this
list with the email
>For more information, visit
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN