14262Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?
- Nov 11, 2012--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income from landed property. At that time in Britain, "income" meant passive ownership income, especially income from land and debt instruments, not earned income, which was called, "wages."
> InitiallyMore accurately, onto the productive.
> it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to
> gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.
> How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view itThat's clearly false. The USA was right behind Britain in industrialization in the first half of the 19th C, and there was a superabundance of good land for the taking.
> 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.
> Having cheap labour isBut they are too stupid to figure out that you can't have cheap labor when labor has to support a large and exorbitantly parasitic landowning and debt-owning rentier class, as well as supporting government, the laborers themselves, and their families.
> ingrained in the management psyche in the UK.
> Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell people today that was aSame in Japan, where the LVT was explicit, and paid for most public spending during the single generation when Japan grew from a poverty-stricken feudal backwater to a global economic, industrial and military power.
> success and should be used now. They laugh at you.
-- Roy Langston
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>