Re: Micome experiment in Canada in the 1970s
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:OK, I get how it works. Thanks.
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
> > > Tax credits circumvent (at least in theory because there has never been a direct case on this in MD) the uniformity clause because they are (short version) spending not taxing. So there already is a a "renter's tax credit" in MD, it involves a very complicated formula base on Income (and age, seniors get more) and houselhold size.
> > But is it an income tax credit or a property tax credit? If the former, could it be implemented as the latter instead?
> It's a property tax credit. You get a check as a renter if you qualify. So the renter's property tax credit is more like a means tested CD, but it comes from general revenues.
> The Homeowners Property Tax Credit reduces your property tax.Presumably these two programs were already in place when you tried to get the LVT bill through, so the tax credit part of your proposal probably looked redundant.
> >RL: I understand; I'm just wondering what the current state of the exemption/credit art was at the time of your proposal.
> I don't understand what mean?
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> The "we" obligation has led to some bad consequences, including theNo, those consequences result from a misapprehension of the obligation we have to our fellows, which must first be to restore their equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That can best (maybe only) be accomplished through LVT with a UIE. Then there is the prudent provision of education, and basic and catastrophic health care. Private charity can probably handle the rest.
> extensive welfare states that populate a lot of the world.
> Essentially, aFrom the productive to the poor's landlords. Right.
> welfare state admits that its economy is unable to attain the real
> objective - liberty and justice for all - so it goes to extraordinary
> lengths to patch up its failure with re-distribution of wealth.
> It fails and in addition there is a theory of history that suggests thatHistory suggests that it is welfare for the rich -- especially landowners -- that collapses civilizations, not welfare for the poor.
> the welfare state is the reason why democracies fail. That, as more and
> more citizens find that taking from the state via the vote is easier, so
> the number of takers grow even as the producers diminish. Eventually, comes
> In any event, the problems have arisen because "we" feel obligated whichSee above. The problems arise because the nature of the obligation is misapprehended.
> is a lot easier to do than feeling "I" am obligated.
> Which is healthier? Governments appropriating other people's money to"Meeza hatesa gubmint!!"
> distribute on pet projects
> or individuals deciding that someone needs helpAs Karl Eskelund's report from Bengal explained, individuals just end up giving to landowners.
> and proceeding to do something about it?
-- Roy Langston