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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Micome experiment in Canada in the 1970s

Expand Messages
  • jdkromkowski@gmail.com
    Redundant? No. The bill changed the from taxing land and imps to land only. The effect of that is that while a majority of own occup. Will save some will pay.
    Message 1 of 83 , Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Redundant? No. The bill changed the from taxing land and imps to land only. The effect of that is that while a majority of own occup. Will save some will pay. This ensured that the # of payers was low. The homeowners tax credit doesnt work at all like the renters version. It i8s a circuit breaker which in effect limits the annual increase in tax liability to a 4 % at state level regardless of assessment increase. Redundancy was not an issue. Issue was opposition of chamb of commerce who thought incorrectly that it would to higher "business" taxes, assessment office who incorrectly thought there would be more assmnt appeals and fact thaqt chair represented wealthy people in hight lv locations (white suburbs of dc)
      jdk typed in haste+not proofed
    • roy_langston
      ... No, 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
      Message 83 of 83 , Jun 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:

        > The "we" obligation has led to some bad consequences, including the
        > extensive welfare states that populate a lot of the world.

        No, 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.

        > Essentially, a
        > 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.

        From the productive to the poor's landlords. Right.

        > It fails and in addition there is a theory of history that suggests that
        > 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
        > collapse.

        History suggests that it is welfare for the rich -- especially landowners -- that collapses civilizations, not welfare for the poor.

        > In any event, the problems have arisen because "we" feel obligated which
        > is a lot easier to do than feeling "I" am obligated.

        See above. The problems arise because the nature of the obligation is misapprehended.

        > Which is healthier? Governments appropriating other people's money to
        > distribute on pet projects

        "Meeza hatesa gubmint!!"

        > or individuals deciding that someone needs help
        > and proceeding to do something about it?

        As Karl Eskelund's report from Bengal explained, individuals just end up giving to landowners.

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