|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] attitudes|
|Date:||Friday, March 24, 2006 19:48:00 (+0000)|
|From:||John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|In reply to:||Message 3714 (written by Jeffery Smith)|
Just one major fault in this. The site's value most certainly does not depend
on its output in many cases, and valuable farmland can be rendered uneconomic to
farm because of other factors, such as a view of the sea in two directions from a
part of it. Or bcause a heavily indebted council must rate (locasl tax) it at a
level it can't sustain.
And the first part of this this is a problem, that no political party in NZ,
including us, has ever fouynd a suitable answer for.
Regards. John R.
From: Jeffery Smith <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:23:26 -0800
>On Mar 23,
2006, at 4:44 PM, John G Rawson wrote:
>>I'm inclined to agree partly with
>Thanks for the post.
>>In NZ land is taxed (on "unimproved value"
usually) for local
>>proivision of amenities. In some cases it is at such a
>>that one could query whether the freeholding of land in "fee
>>simple" still really exists in fact.
>Rather than reduce the tax, raise
its rate until all the rent is
>collected, then return the recovered rent - a
>value - to the members of society. Most people then could
>afford their land tax or land dues, plus some.
>>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.
>Yet the rate depends on the
site's value. The site's value depends
>on its output (if a commercial site, not
a residential one), Ricardo
>showed a couple centuries back. A cost, like
>subtract from the potential profit, and hence from a site's
>As when a site had on it a worn-out building, removing it would
>detract from the site's value.
>>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
>>land-based ignores the whole complex web of commercial structure
up over about the last half millenium.
>Complexity is not always a virtue,
especially when it mucks up
said, the concept of land can be complex (in
>economics textbooks), including
not just surface sites but also
>subsurface resources (like oil) and
supra-surface spectrum (like
>broadcast bandwidth) and geosynchronous orbits and
>services (for assimilating pollution) and metaphoric land like
>"field of knowlege" (enclosed by near-free patents), etc. So there's
of natural entities that attract socially-generated values
>available for taxing
or for charging dues.
>SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
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
Discover fun and games at XtraMSN