14252Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?
- Nov 11, 2012--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:
> > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT> > has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
> But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has> never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the> 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue.> Almost the sole source in fact.Derek, I am fully aware of that. I posted this about 3 months ago:My sister has done research on this and has revealed that our ancestor, Sir John Miller owned the district of Islington in London from 1613. Islington is now a very expensive fashionable district just north of the financial district, The City of London.He paid land tax...http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45434"Islington pays the sum of 2001l. 11s. 9d. [£2,001] to the land-tax, which is at the rate of about 1s. 6d. in the pound."Unfortunately his grandsons, etc, sold off parts of Islington after he died, not doing what the Grosvenor family (Duke of Westminster) did with their less valuable fields at Mayfair to the west of London. The Grosvenors did not sell their land and only leased taking in rent. Otherwise I might have been a Duke and one of the world's richest men. :-)But the family goes on... a part of the Millers went to then British America and married into the Beck family. John Beck was in the Revolutionary war against the British commanding Fort Henry, at one time and also Fort Pitt which became Pittsburgh - you can blame me if you want Dan Sullivan! :-) . Beck is mentioned in American history. A part of the Becks/Millers returned to Britain, hence how I came about.But the revolutionary war need never have come about if the British government had taken notice of Adam Smith. Smith said tax land values in the UK to reduce government debt and not the colonists I am not sure if he wanted to tax land in America as well. Then the war need never have occurred.... and a part of the family then would never have been a hero of the USA. :-)> During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an> army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and> still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income> tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th> century.Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars. The Tory party, party of the landowners, reintroduced it in 1842, as they kept pushing tax from rich landowners to the poor.Initially it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.It was no coincidence that as tax was gradually pushed from land to people's labour, the world dominating British economy gradually dwindled. OK, the rise of the USA, by seizing land and its resources to its west, and the creation of Germany as one state meant there was some strong competition as well.How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the British did as they had no need to. The British moved, and lived, all over the world, because they never had access to cheap land to live on in the UK - they appropriated others land, or introduced an alien land system to them, but that is another point.> And I don't believe that it was only coincidence> that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion> of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout> the 19th and 20th centuries.That is correct. Also, as Michael Hudson noted, the British had an obsession in rigging the free market to have cheap labour, which brought down its empire - well the empire faded and then was just given away. A similar thing happened with the Roman empire. Having cheap labour is ingrained in the management psyche in the UK.> Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's> dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty> and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic> growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success.> And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in> practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672,> which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century,> let alone the 19th.Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell people today that was a success and should be used now. They laugh at you. Michael Hudson studied the ancient civilization's economies. Mention that they had a better base system and people laugh at you. People are brainwashed that as time went on we got things better all around - consumer goods, and cheap energy, gives them that impression. That is not the case with economics. In the UK, tell people it was better in the early 1800s and they point to Dickens.> So, agreed that there are zero modern examples.> But there is a huge historical example.
The example no one takes any notice of, as they think all was bad hundreds of years ago full of grovelling poverty. Pre the industrial revolution, the average British worker worked about 3.5 to days as he had no need to work flat out for 10 hours a day and 6 days a week, as was the case when the industrial revolution came. Many cursed the onset of mainly slave labour, the machines they never mined too much - Ned Ludd was one, who was hung.BTW, when income tax was introduce we had schedule A, which a tax on land value. The Tory party, them again, got rid of it in 1964. Before 1964, house prices were pretty stable to today, Since schedule A went we have been perpetually short of homes and price have gone though the roof.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#History
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>