Re: Single Tax
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, dspain@... wrote:
> Despite the vagueness of dictionary definitions, I still maintain that a tax is, essentially, "anI.e., you decline to use dictionary definitions.
> arbitrary impost made by authority".
I think maybe we're done.
> That it is imposed by authority can hardly be challenged. NorI see. So, because a dog CAN be white, dogs are white by definition....?
> that it can be arbitrary (eg taxing chimneys, beards, size of windows).
> It may be quite irrationalWhile 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.
> (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.
> From Australian Legal DictionaryDid you get that? State TAXES include LAND tax.
> 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 ;  HCA 38 .... State taxes include land tax,
> fee for serviceProving that LVT is not a 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 ;  HCA 61 ; Airservices
> Australia v Canadian Airlines (1999) 202 CLR 133 ; 167 ALR 392 ;  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 ;  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 ;  ALR 55 ;
>  HCA 67 .
-- Roy Langston
--- 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