Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15022Re: Fred Harrison does not say "Land Value Tax"

Expand Messages
  • John
    Feb 4, 2013
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, ADuffield1@... wrote:
      > Compiling an LVT briefing paper for Scottish Liberal Democrats last
      > year, I coined the term 'Lo-Tax' (Location Taxation) which ALTER has
      > now adopted as a euphemism for the reform we seek. For once, such a
      > term allows us - rather than our opponents - to hijack the language of
      > economics, helping talk of a Lo-Tax economy to take a slightly
      > different slant.
      > Fred Harrison's triple dilemma - which I think we share - seems to be
      > that:
      > a) it is fatal to talk about LVT as a tax (which of course it isn't),
      > yet if we try to call it anything else it is portrayed as a tax in
      > sheep's clothing by our opponents;
      > b) the 65% of (western) people who now have a stake in land (i.e. the
      > postage stamp-sized plot on which their home sits) are unwilling to
      > engage with any new tax - especially one on the property 'investment'
      > they hold in lieu of a pension;
      > c) LVT, however it is dressed up and patiently explained as a
      > REPLACEMENT for deadweight taxation, is nonetheless viewed and
      > castigated as an ADDITIONAL fiscal burden by opponents and those who
      > have already closed their minds.
      > I contend that most people who bother to vote in so-called democratic
      > elections will at least have passing familiarity with the concept of a
      > low-tax economy - typically lower personal tax with correspondingly
      > smaller state expenditure - although it is rarely ever given much
      > definition by politicians (they don't need to!). Despite this, I also
      > contend that on balance, for the 65% mentioned above, lower taxation
      > per se is a more attractive proposition that its fiscal opposite.
      > Lo-Tax is thus a semantic way of hitching LVT to a more populist policy
      > ideal. It calls a spade a spade (even though we know its a shovel); it
      > sounds to the home-owning 65% that it might be something they should
      > support; and it suggests a lower overall level of tax than the status
      > quo (which would be true under an LVT regime for the same revenue
      > raised).
      > The neo-classicists have twisted enough economic language. Playing them
      > at their own game may be the best way forward!
      > Lo-Tax: lowering taxes by taxing locations.

      Nice one Andrew. I was aware of the term Lo-Tax but never knew it was nailed down by Alter.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic