15022Re: Fred Harrison does not say "Land Value Tax"
- Feb 4, 2013--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, ADuffield1@... wrote:
>Nice one Andrew. I was aware of the term Lo-Tax but never knew it was nailed down by Alter.
> 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
> 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
> 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>