|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone|
|Date:||Tuesday, March 7, 2006 20:59:52 (+1300)|
|From:||Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|In reply to:||Message 3566 (written by Jeffery Smith)|
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
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 lands we
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 associated legal
power would remain dominant.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
>> 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
>> 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
> 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
> 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
>> 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
> SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
> 7536 SE Milwaukie Av, Portland Oregon 97202 USA
> 503/232-1337; email@example.com; www.geonomics.org
> Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit