Keith Wilde wrote:-
That site values increase under
current systems is an undeniable, empirical fact. Just as undeniable is
that the owners have usually done very little directly to 'earn'
that increased value. Thus the appeal of LVT.
Joe has argued persuasively,
however, that LVT can be quite unfair to
trying to operate a business on land that was formerly not of
interest to land speculators.
(Jeff Smith replied:- ) 'Cept,
if land is of interest to speculators, it's because they can
make a buck there.
) Then the proper solution to that would seem to be to put measures in place to end ‘speculation’
in land ‘values’. As Douglas suggested.
(Jeff continues:- ) If they can, so should a
present owner be able to,
thus having the funds to pay any
) Not unless he’s out to ‘speculate’ himself, and intends to
sell his ‘property’ instead of his ‘products’.
(Jeff continues:- ) Also, where you don't have
LVT, you do have speculative withholding.
) Once again, put measures in place, as Douglas suggested, that end that ‘speculative
withholding’ by ending ‘speculation’ in land itself. Deal with the ‘cause’ of the
problem ~ the ability to ‘speculate’ the way it’s currently
done ~ by taking the profit out of the ‘witholding’
of land for purely ‘speculatative’ purposes.
It isn’t hard to do, and we
do not have to have any LVT or other tax on land to do it. Nor do we have to dispossess anyone of their
title. There may very well be other
valid reason why someone is ‘witholding’
development on a piece of land.
Businesses do ‘grow’ when they are successful. And many a wise businessman planned ahead for
that possible growth when
he acquired a site he wassn’t entirely able to use
You’ll probably say that’s
In a sense it is. But look at it
relatively. Weyerhaeuser Company is one
of your nation’s largest private land owners. Maybe the
largest now, for all I know. Last
time I looked, I seem to recall reading they had something like 7 million acres.
Maybe more now, maybe less. The US National Forest lands, under ‘public’
ownership, hold around 193 million acres!
And that’s only your National Forests. How much other land in the USA are ‘public’ lands? Who’s the bigger ‘excluder’?
One other thing.
Weyerhaeuser manages its forest lands for timber production but with a
great deal of consideration of that land’s “other values”,
whether mandated by law, or not. It pays
its ‘shareholders’ a dividend every quarter, and Uncle Sam, States,
Counties, and Municipalities a hefty amount of various taxes. What do ‘your’
National Forest lands ‘pay’ to their ‘shareholders’? Are they ‘well managed’ for ‘timber
production’ and ‘other values’? Or are they slated to rot or burn because the
new breed of ‘excluders, who pay the ‘public’ NOTHING for
THEIR warped ‘vision’ of a Nature devoid of human beings are
hogging them all?
(Jeff continues;- ) Then you have some
speculator with an eyesore or vacant lot keeping down value in a good
neighborhood, making it hard for entrepreneurial owners to invest and make a
buck from their own land.
) You’re contradicting yourself, Jeff.
Why would a ‘speculator’, who is interested in getting the ‘value’
of his land up, (so he can sell at a profit), want to make it hard for
entrepreneurial owners to ‘invest’ and make a buck, thereby
increasing the ‘value’ of their land as well as his?
(Jeff continues:- ) Nothing
fair about that. It's why the Chamber of Commerce support LVT in
even paid for a full-page ad.
(Joe replies:-) Might as well have stayed under King George III !
) And he has provided texts from Douglas
that suggest some more complicated approaches to the
problem of changing site value. I'm not
confident that I have understood
them well, but would like to see them
considered in relation
to cultural heritage, dividends and compensated
) That’s exactly as they should be considered, Keith. In
context. And done so, they would give as complete a ‘freedom
within security’ for each and every individual as is probably possible. The ‘monopolisation’ of land, or of anything else, can only be broken by removing
the ‘cause’ of that ‘monopolisation’. Which Social Credit, properly applied,
certainly stands a far better chance of doing than any LVT ever will.
(Jeff Smith:-) One way to consider them is to
look at what happens when places do adopt LVT.
) Like Hong
maybe? Where the accumulation of ‘financial
returns’ became as big a perversion of the proper primary purpose of an
economic system as ‘making work’ has been elsewhere. So much so that many of the ‘traditional’
Chinese values; ones like perseverance, a sense of humour, respect for others,
civility, patience, and good manners, were thrust aside by those whose whole reason
for being there was to be able to ‘get rich’ in a hurry. And then ‘flaunt’ their success in
piling up ‘money’, by parading themselves with all the ostentatious
trappings it would buy. Rudeness, pushiness, arrogance, and no consideration
whatsoever for anything
other than the almighty ‘dollar’ became the ‘new
order’. Is that what’s done when one can’t
be a tenant-for-life on one’s ‘own’ land without fear of
eviction? What takes the place of ‘pride
of place’? One’s ‘own’
place, “where none shall make him afraid”?