| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Friday, March 10, 2006 18:49:22 (+1300) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
Howdy William,
I recall our health dept in the early nineties had twenty percent of it
health vote already spoken for due to debt. Govt depts being run on the
corporate model they have to pay their own way including handling their
share of the public debt. Thus we have a sinking lid on services.
During the same time they were restructuring every year which would have
cost millions, trying to find a formula that was more efficient! Private
corporations could never have afforded such a luxury!
Gisborne Health Board was run by an Engineer! Some failed to complete their
contract time due to the stress of the clash between business culture and
the public health culture.
Comes down to the question of whether systems are made for people or people
for systems.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
From: "W. McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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