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

Re: Single Tax

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... I.e., you decline to use dictionary definitions. I think maybe we re done. ... I see. So, because a dog CAN be white, dogs are white by definition....?
    Message 1 of 77 , Jul 31, 2012
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, dspain@... wrote:

      > Despite the vagueness of dictionary definitions, I still maintain that a tax is, essentially, "an
      > arbitrary impost made by authority".

      I.e., you decline to use dictionary definitions.

      I think maybe we're done.

      > That it is imposed by authority can hardly be challenged. Nor
      > that it can be arbitrary (eg taxing chimneys, beards, size of windows).

      I see. So, because a dog CAN be white, dogs are white by definition....?

      > It may be quite irrational
      > (eg taxing employment). OTOH, it may have some apparent (but usually debatable) rationale (eg
      > taxing incomes or tobacco). In contrast, it cannot be a fee for service.

      While LVT is a value-for-value transaction, it is not a fee for a service any more than the current property tax is a fee for a service.

      > From Australian Legal Dictionary
      >
      > Taxation and revenue
      > A compulsory exaction of money by a government for public purposes, being neither a pecuniary
      > penalty nor a fee for services rendered: Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR
      > 263 ; [1938] HCA 38 .... State taxes include land tax,

      Did you get that? State TAXES include LAND tax.

      > fee for service
      > A charge exacted for particular identified services provided or rendered individually to, or at
      > the request or direction of, the particular person required to make the payment: Air Caledonie
      > International v Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 462 ; 82 ALR 385 ; [1988] HCA 61 ; Airservices
      > Australia v Canadian Airlines (1999) 202 CLR 133 ; 167 ALR 392 ; [1999] HCA 62 . A fee for service
      > assumes a direct relationship between the payment of the fee and the receipt of the service:
      > Harper v Victoria (1966) 114 CLR 361 ; [1966] ALR 731 . Where there is an indirect relationship,
      > the fee is not a fee for a service: Parton v Milk Board (Vic) (1949) 80 CLR 229 ; [1950] ALR 55 ;
      > [1949] HCA 67 .

      Proving that LVT is not a fee for service.

      -- Roy Langston
    • John David Kromkowski
      ... not worked. Stop the madness. Do you really want to be considered a crackpot or a disinformer. Every single state in the US, HAS an LV Tax as part of the
      Message 77 of 77 , Aug 6 3:32 PM

        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Can we just be blunt and truthful about this?
        > >
        > > What we are talking about is a "tax" on land value.
        >
        > It is also how it is branded. In over 100 years branding it as a tax has not worked.

        Stop the madness.  Do you really want to be considered a crackpot or a disinformer.
         
        Every single state in the US, HAS an LV Tax as part of the property tax.   Even the council tax is a form of LVT, even though it's ridiculous in its implementation.
         
        JDK
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.