I'm inclined to agree partly with this. A lot of our material is so verbose
that obviously it is designed to show off the depth of knowledge of the writer
rather than conveying it clearly. I am NOT referring to messages from "Triumph
...." But when someone comes out with a crystallised point, you also seem to
retreat into vagaries very quickly.
I think there is a degree of antagonism from both sides in this correspondence
with you that is rather unnecessary. In NZ land is taxed (on "unimproved value"
usually) for local proivision of amenities. In some cases it is at such a high
rate that one could query whether the freeholding of land in "fee simple" still
really exists in fact.
The SC movement here has no argument with the basic process, but seeks to get
away from the situation where ratepayers must repay many times over the cost of a
work that was done, because of the ensuing added interest cost. We do not
attack the principle of interest as such, but rather the ridiculous approach that
non-commercial public enterprises must be funded in the same way as commercial
ones that have the ability to repay from their incomes.
And our main concern is to ensure that our citizens can meet these and other
costs of living without, as at present, the Nation generally having to go into
ever-increasing debt to do so.
There are uses and abuses where land is concerned that must be controlled if we
are to survive, and if some of this can be done by fair taxes, OK. But to
suggest that all taxation should be land-based ignores the whole complex web of
commercial structure built up over about the last half millenium.
Regards. John R.
From: Jeffery Smith <jjs@geonomics.org>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] attitudes
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:09:57 -0800
>On Mar 23,
2006, at 5:33 AM, Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
>> You are on a social credit
discussion group but won't make the
>>time to read a 20-page intro to the
subject. Can't you see that
>>must seem disrespectful?
>
>Sorry about that.
Don't take it personally. In the real world today,
>you can't change it by
asking people to read 20 pages. First, you
>must be able to express it in a
bumpersticker, than a sound byte,
>then an op-ed, then a brochure, then a
booklet of 20 pages, last a
>book. Also, the old saw, "Sorry to send such a long
letter, didn't
>have
time to write you a short one." Honing, always honing the
>message, actually
forces one to make new insights.
>
>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
>johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
