(Jeff Smith wrote:- ) Yet price controls
inhibit the market, which could work just fine, were
we to let it, and distinguish between values individually generated -
leave them alone, untaxed - and values socially generated, which
usually adhere to locations, and recover and share them. Then nobody
would have any reason to speculate, yet the unique value of each
location would obtain, and the market could treat that location
accordingly.
(Joe replies;-
) The Douglas proposals could hardly be described as ‘price controls’. The ‘owner’ of a piece of
property wishing to sell ‘his’ land can always recover his original
purchase price from the ‘County’ land agency, which is obliged to
purchase it at that price (for the ‘value’ of the land alone), and
offer that land, (again, considering just its ‘value’ as land
established by that price alone ~ leaving the ‘improvements’, etc.
aside), for sale to someone else at that same price.
The Social Credit proposals in
their entirety, properly applied, would be ‘deflationary’ over time,
not ‘inflationary’. We’re trying to achieve a ‘falling
price level’ for all the needed and desired products that ‘money’ can
buy. (Those ‘consumables’ produced from land, labour, capital, and
cultural heritage.) Not a ‘rising’
one. So a ‘land owner’, in terms of the
‘purchasing power’ of the money he receives for ‘his’
land sold for the same price he paid for it, say several years earlier, has
actually profited under Social Credit. The ‘money’ he receives on sale now
buys him ‘more’ of his ‘consumables’, even if it isn’t
‘more money’.
Contrast that to the present
situation, where, if I were to ‘sell’ my two half acre lots for the
current ‘market’ value, say, for seven or eight times that which I
paid for them in the mid 1980’s, I would have to pay at least the amount
I received now, or more, for two more similar half-acre lots here. And the price of most other ‘consumables’
has risen, too. (Or, if they haven’t, many who produce them are ‘working
themselves into bankruptcy.’)
What have I really gained? Nothing. If I did
that, and re-purchased ‘land’, I’d actually be losing, since the base
for Property Tax ‘assessed’ is predicated on the ‘sale
price’ of properties. And next year I’d be paying a whopping amount
‘more’ tax on my ‘new’ land over the whopping amount I was
already paying on my ‘old’ land. We’re just working with ‘bigger
figures’ ~ pure inflation.
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
