| Subject: | Fw: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Friday, March 10, 2006 20:41:09 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
> It does seem to me that the "single tax" idea has merit in preventing the
> sort of centralization of the ownership of land that we see illustrated in
> a game of Monopoly. But what is needed to supplement this is some form of
> National Dividend, so that all citizens can participate in the value of
> the nation's cultural inheritance. Without that, we are simply pawns in
> the hands of financiers.
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 1970-10123-99 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA
> Phone (780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
>
>
>> Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
>>
>> I believe there is only one proper purpose of any tax~ to pay for public
>> services best provided through 'government'. As Douglas noted, as long
>> as private enterprise and public services co-exist, the means of
>> transfer of privately produced goods and services to public account must
>> be by a form of taxation. To the extent they are necessary, a
>> 'flat-rate' income tax, and/or a sales tax were the ones he preferred.
>> The latterto be similar to our GST, or a VAT, if needed.
>>
>> What he specifically warned against were taxes on any kind of
>> 'property'. Be they 'capital levies', 'inheritance' or 'death-duty'
>> taxes, or 'land' taxes. These all concentrate control over private
>> property into the hands of those who can only ultimately provide the
>> 'money' to pay them ~ the financial, or 'banking' sector.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: W. McGunnigle [mailto:wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz]
>> Sent: March 7, 2006 3:25 AM
>> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone
>>
>> Hi Everyone
>> I have observed the various comments on the topic about
>> land ownership. If land ownership or custodianship attracts a premium in
>> the
>> form 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
>> 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.
>>> 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
>> 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
>>> >> 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
>> 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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 09/03/2006
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 09/03/2006
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006
|
Fw: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message