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

Re: Rack Rent

Expand Messages
  • mattbieker
    ... Only in the sense that it s a waste of time and money to buy a Lexus rather than a Toyota, despite the fact that the dealer charges you for the full
    Message 1 of 101 , Nov 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
      >
      > A tax that takes all locational advantage = Georgist Utopia (despite fact that somebody moving to where there's work like London and ,to do so buying a house, will, if they don't get racked by price,get hit by full LVT making the move a waste of time and money).

      Only in the sense that it's "a waste of time and money" to buy a Lexus rather than a Toyota, despite the fact that the dealer charges you for the full difference in advantage a Lexus has over a Toyota.

      I'm not sure what you're finding unjust about paying for benefits received.
    • John
      ... Few parts of London have close communities. The old London arrangement of terraced houses ... If giving the land of England back to the people of
      Message 101 of 101 , Dec 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
        > dbcreed@ wrote:
        >
        > > It will come as a surprise to Londoners to hear
        > > that Bloomsbury and Marylebone are not
        > > communities or COMMUNITIES even.
        >
        > No, it won't, as Londoners are aware that they are
        > merely neighborhoods or districts.

        Few parts of London have close communities. 
         
        > > The old London arrangement of terraced houses
        > > surrounding a communal but private garden
        > > behind cast-iron railings(annual key money 50
        > > quid) does create a sense of community
        >
        > Speaking of senses, that smells of equivocation
        > -- and conflates "community" with "exclusivity."

        "If giving the land of England back to
        the people of England is theft, I am
        quite happy to call it theft. In his zeal to
        defend private property, my
        correspondent does not stop to consider
        how the so-called owners of the land
        got hold of it. They simply seized it by
        force, afterwards hiring lawyers to
        provide them with title-deeds. 

        In the  case of the enclosure of the common
        lands, which was going on from about
        1600 to 1850, the landgrabbers did not
        even have the excuse of being foreign
        conquerors; they were quite frankly
        taking the heritage of their own countrymen,
        upon no sort of pretext except that they
        had the power to do so. Except for the
        few surviving commons, the high roads,
        the lands of the National Trust, a certain
        number of parks, and the sea shore below
        high-tide mark, every square inch of England
        is 'owned' by a few thousand families. These
        people are just about as useful as so many
        tapeworms. 

        It is desirable that people should
        own their own dwelling houses, and it is
        probably desirable that a farmer should own
        as much land as he can actually farm. But
        the ground-landlord in a town area has no function
        and no excuse for existence. He is merely
        a person who has found out a way of
        milking the public while giving nothing in
        return. He causes rents to be higher, he
        makes town planning more difficult, and he excludes
        children from green spaces: that is literally all
        that he does, except to draw his income.

        The removal of the railings in the squares
        was a first step against him. It was a very
        small step, and yet an appreciable one, as
        the present move to restore the railings shows.
        For three years or so the squares lay open, and
        their sacred turf was trodden by the feet of
        working-class children, a sight to make
        dividend-drawers gnash their false teeth.
        If that is theft, all I can say is, so much the
        better for theft."

        - George Orwell

        Orwell was writing in WW2.  The squares were open after the railings were taken down to make war products.  To his disgust, he notes they started to enclose the green grass in the squares again, using wooden fences, excluding poor children from the scarse open urban space.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.