@k_r_jThe problem is that though you say that under LVT landowners would be paying for their privilege, the vast majority of politically crucial homeownersMessage 1 of 111 , Nov 8, 2012View Source@k_r_j
The problem is that though you say that under LVT" landowners would be paying for their privilege," the vast majority of politically crucial homeowners are already paying for their land with a mortgage.They would probably not see paying the mortgage as a privilege but as an onerous responsibility.Imposing LVT on the basis "that you can't tax land value too much " is therefore a non-starter.You are not facing what Roy Langston called the injustice of people paying for land twice.(Where is RL? Is he alright? No Walto either.)
The idea that Government would be restricted in its spending to what could be extracted from landowners is dangerously simple-minded and not a little right-wing.What kind of political party would seek to drastically restrict Government spendingand call this putting "a cap on the fun",as you do?I will not go on because I realise that my messages are arriving without the paragraph divisions they leave here with.With Pres Obama poised to make huge cuts , we do not need to be talking about restricting anything ,least of all "the fun" which includes serious matters of universal health care, merely to justify LVT to right-wingers who will not support it anyway when it devalues their one capital asset they pledged their working-lives to pay for.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:43:40 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> Yes, rigging supply, as the UK does via the planning system, can keep land prices high. In the UK it is for political reasons to gain the owner/occupier vote.<
Sort of. Nothing that can't be solved by LVT though, where landowners would be paying for their privilege and putting what land there is planning for to good use. Planning as in limiting construction can be both good and bad. There is probably a level of planning where the gains outweigh the losses. Ensuring that everyone has access to some green areas in walking distance etc. The advantage of LVT and private landownership is that govt. role in deciding the timing of land use is lessened, even if they maintain some planning/zoning. If someone wants to build on that bare land, fine, their LVT bill just increased from being rezoned from bare land to buildable land, but maybe the overall bill decreases slightly for everyone in the neighbourhood because new construction came into the market.
> Taiwan increased LVT when they saw land speculation was occurring.
> So we have to balance to keep LVT high enough to discourage land speculation. This may result in the gvmt collecting too much tax. This is where the citizens dividend comes into pay in giving it back.<
The whole LVT/CD business puts the traditional tax paradigm on it's head. In a way you can't tax land value too much except for when you actually tax more than it's value, which is counterproductive. Traditionally govt sets a budget, and apportions taxes to cover the expenses. In my ideal fiscal world, we'd tax land rents first, and the revenues decides the budget.
> But, always a but, would a citizens dividend be politically manipulated as the planning laws are? The population may become accustomed to this annual citizens divided windfall. Gvmts can then keep LVT too high to gain the vote by shouting how they gave a wonderful dividend (payable just before Christmas of course) in the past 5 years. People are short sighted.<
Probably, politics can mess almost anything up. Having a restricted amount of tax revenue at least puts a cap on the fun. Maybe one could constitutionally decide what goes to a dividend and what goes to expenses?
> Any citizens dividend should be paid back weekly or monthly. The expectation of a big annual cheque can be used by the cunning.
For what? :)
JDK, Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the fittest just describes those who have survived. With regard to your last sentence –Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23, 2012View SourceJDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.