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

Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?Also Social Credit in Canada

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... That, my friend, is an argument from (a particularly bad) authority--coming from one who would like to blow up the current tax code. It also uses proves
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
      >
      > As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.
      >

      That, my friend, is an argument from (a particularly bad) authority--coming from one who would like to blow up the current tax code. It also uses "proves" incorrectly. "Provides some evidence for" only means "proves" in Langstonese.


      > > More importantly you don't appear to understand monetary alternatives (such as Social Credit's National Dividends) to recyclying ground rent.
      >
      > I understand them far better than you, as I prove every time the subject comes up.
      >

      And that, is a (typical) argument from arrogance, one which completely "proves" the falsity of the last sentence in your previous post.

      W
    • David Reed
      I haven t seen any proof that you understand Social Credit s National Dividends better than I do .And you certainly don t know anything about British house
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I haven't seen any proof that you understand Social Credit's National Dividends better than I do .And you certainly don't know anything about British house prices. There is more to proof than irritable one-liners: you have to amass evidence in the way of facts and figures, quotes, instances and worked examples.Just for starters.
        In the latter instance of British house prices, I would refer you to the current blog-site of Tim Worstall ,an English right-wing minarchist who is also a deeply closeted Land Taxer.Entitled "Balls spounts balls" (British public ie private  school "humour" and bad spelling) ,he describes the cost of contruction( what you  Americans [in spirit] call improvement value) of a typical three-bedroom British house as being £110k>£112k.Then"Oh and the land value for such a three bedder with planning permission is around £100k ,for any region of the country where there is someone actually looking for a house,that is." I would say that its his construction value that's a bit high.
        As for Social Credit, I'm the only one that mentions it on landcafe.If I'd known you were such an expert ,I 'd have mentioned spraying National Dividends  around Detroit to raise a bit of effective demand.As Detroit is right on the border and has a river system that fits into the St Lawrence Seaway, perhaps it should develop its economic ties with Canada,the way Cascadians see BC and American points south as a new country.Perhaps Detroit/Michigan should secede and join Canada!At least Canada has some proper Socialists : basic car insurance in Saskatchewan can only be obtained from the government.Great stuff! ( I am not being entirely serious in proposing Detroit secedes from the Union BTW)   

        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        From: roy_langston@...
        Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 05:55:23 +0000
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?Also Social Credit in Canada

         
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

        > @Roy LangstonI'm afraid a lot of this does n't make sense .

        True, as I didn't write a lot of it.

        >i)How can my approach be "over-literate"?Do you mean over-literal?

        Yes. My mistake.

        > Perhaps not, because when I take a less pedantic view of Ricardo ,you accuse me of being " inaccurate". Your attitude would appear to be in your next thrash-about paragraph : Ricardo means whatever I think he means at the time,never mind what he said, which only the "over-literate" bother about .

        Actually, the problem is in your imagining, Derrida-like, that what Ricardo said is relevant in any way. You appear to share Derrida's view that there is no reality that texts are about, only the texts themselves.

        But just as Newton did not govern the physical universe with his words and symbols describing physical interactions, Ricardo did not govern economic relationships by describing them. His words identified some relevant facts, but the words did not create the facts. The facts are what matter, not the words used to identify and describe them. You don't seem to be very clear on this.

        > ii) A reasonable person would have disproved with alternative figures my numerical sequence showing a UIE prompted growth in house prices .

        Your numerical sequence showed no such thing, because it ignored the requirement of an underlying difference in economic advantage.

        > You use pretentious ,possibly "over literate" bluster.

        I like to get some enjoyment out of what would otherwise be a regal pain in the labonza.

        > iii)Your latest position on Walto's children as cash cows is that it is the same with Income Tax and therefore a good thing.Hmm.

        As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.

        > More importantly you don't appear to understand monetary alternatives (such as Social Credit's National Dividends) to recyclying ground rent.

        I understand them far better than you, as I prove every time the subject comes up.

        > This is odd because you are singularly well-placed in BC which had a Social Credit Provincial government until the 1970's under Wacky Bennett.

        You are of course unaware that the Bennett government was Social Credit in name only, and was actually a coalition of right-wing Liberals and Conservatives who joined forces under the Social Credit banner to prevent the leftist CCF (later NDP) from forming a government.

        > This could not get round the constitutional prohibition of State owned banks in Canada as a whole, but came up with some fairly startling and successful State owned corporations.Next door in Alberta ,there was the more orthodox Social Credit government of Bible Bill Aberhart in the 1930's onwards.You declare that National Dividends presuppose" money issuance effected by an independent government authority".

        No, I simply warn against issuing money by any other means.

        > This is precisely what the Social Crediters thought.The Alberta Treasury Branches, which exist to this day, were Aberhart's attempt to set up a State owned bank.Farther East ,Saskatchewan came up with the first North American National Health Service which Michael Moore highlighted in Sicko.I wonder you do not research West Canada's successful projects in escaping Bank Control rather than insisting on re-inventing the wheel using American ideology.

        I wonder that you imagine any of the above paragraph is relevant or constructive.

        > iv As usual with the UK Situation you don't know what you are talking about.

        Says the woefully underinformed Brit who just presumed to lecture me about Western Canadian political history....

        > Land value is a huge proportion of house prices everywhere.

        No, it isn't. There are many places where land value is so low that house prices are effectively all improvement value.

        > Abolish Council Tax and we've got nothing to" build on".

        You haven't anyway, as Council Tax is nothing to build on.

        > You could propose extending and updating this tax ,then converting the assessment to one based on land values.But you don't.

        Because it's too big a mess, and you end up having to defend all the flaws of "Council Tax." Better to start fresh.

        -- Roy Langston


      • roy_langston
        ... At least I understand that money issuance has to be regulated by prices, not the desire for control of seigniorage. ... I ve proved I do. ... Wrong.
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

          > I haven't seen any proof that you understand Social Credit's National Dividends better than I do .

          At least I understand that money issuance has to be regulated by prices, not the desire for control of seigniorage.

          > And you certainly don't know anything about British house prices.

          I've proved I do.

          > There is more to proof than irritable one-liners: you have to amass evidence in the way of facts and figures, quotes, instances and worked examples.

          Wrong. Sometimes a single fact constitutes proof.

          > Just for starters.In the latter instance of British house prices, I would refer you to the current blog-site of Tim Worstall ,an English right-wing minarchist who is also a deeply closeted Land Taxer.Entitled "Balls spounts balls" (British public ie private school "humour" and bad spelling) ,he describes the cost of contruction( what you Americans [in spirit] call improvement value)

          Improvement value is property value less land value, not construction cost.

          > of a typical three-bedroom British house as being £110k>£112k.Then"Oh and the land value for such a three bedder with planning permission is around £100k ,for any region of the country where there is someone actually looking for a house,that is." I would say that its his construction value that's a bit high.

          Do mean his construction _cost_?

          > As for Social Credit, I'm the only one that mentions it on landcafe.

          Mercifully.

          > If I'd known you were such an expert ,I 'd have mentioned spraying National Dividends around Detroit to raise a bit of effective demand.

          To what purpose?

          > As Detroit is right on the border and has a river system that fits into the St Lawrence Seaway, perhaps it should develop its economic ties with Canada,

          The people of Windsor, just across the river from Detroit, view Detroit as a festering sore they do not want to touch.

          > the way Cascadians see BC and American points south as a new country.

          Which we don't.

          > Perhaps Detroit/Michigan should secede and join Canada!At least Canada has some proper Socialists : basic car insurance in Saskatchewan can only be obtained from the government.Great stuff!

          Though what it has to do with collective ownership of the means of production is anyone's guess.

          > ( I am not being entirely serious in proposing Detroit secedes from the Union BTW)

          Yes, it's often difficult to be sure what you are being entirely serious about.

          -- Roy Langston
        • roy_langston
          ... No, it s a pragmatic argument by analogy: tax? check; individual exemption from tax? check; exemption universal, including babies ? check. I haven t
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
            > >
            > > As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.
            >
            > That, my friend, is an argument from (a particularly bad) authority

            No, it's a pragmatic argument by analogy: tax? check; individual exemption from tax? check; exemption universal, including "babies"? check. I haven't identified or invoked any authority.

            > --coming from one who would like to blow up the current tax code.

            But who, unlike some, is willing to learn from it.

            > "Provides some evidence for" only means "proves" in Langstonese.

            Well, it's proof compared to not having provided ANY evidence.

            -- Roy Langston
          • David Reed
            @krjWe have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example. Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              @krj
              We have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example.
              Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs the correct figures. So back of an envelope style estimates  will not suffice. I gave the following (back in Sept) from your friend and mine (also Dave W's) Mark Wadsworth, fag packet maestro supreme:Total UK property values (ie land and buildings)=£6,ooo billions made up of housing= £5,000 billion,commercial= £750 billion,farmland= £250 billion.(All land and buildings except, obviously, farmland).These look alright to me (MW is not going to get his figures wrong) and anyway since the VoA does n't have any contrary figures we may as well use our own.Dave W does not seem prepared to use them though. 

              To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
              From: davewetzel42@...
              Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:13 +0100
              Subject: [LandCafe] How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

               

              I'm just back from Dublin asvocating LVT.
               
              The other Saturday I was speaking on LVT to the UK's "Labour Housing Group" who agreed to renew their support for LVT.
              They are a small group but very influential in Labour circles with Nicky Gavron (the first Deputy Mayor of London) actually present. They discussed with me the problem of getting voters liable to pay LVT on their homes to vote for LVT to replace Council Tax and/or other taxes.
               (or "How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving"?
              We discussed homestead allowance and rollover but Nicky and some others seemed not to be convinced that Labour politicians will suppport a new (even if replacement) tax on homes.
              Following from this what if Labour committed to introduced LVT on ALL land - except for occupied homes worth less than £2m - and currently paying Council Tax (who would continue to pay Council Tax instead of LVT). [Council Tax is the UK's domestic residentail property tax on occupiers].
              Occupied homes less than £2m in value and their gardens probably represent less than 5% of the total UK land area. So full LVT would be levied on the remaining 95% including all empty homes, the most expensive houses, house-builders' land banks, all land used for business and commerce, all farmland, all brownfield sites in towns and cities, all windfarms, the spectrum and airport landing slots etc.
              I recognise that this approach would not have the same beneficial effects as full LVT on all land including occupied residential properties but would it be an approach worth supporting to introduce LVT to the UK?


            • k_r_johansen
              Then I d say what stands in the way of getting a picture of current values in the residential market is the current refusal to do new CT-valuations,
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Then I'd say what stands in the way of getting a picture of current values in the residential market is the current refusal to do new CT-valuations, unfortunately (supposedly a 250m £ revaluation cost, or around one percent of the annual CT-take, is the barrier trotted around by opponents). Someone in the VOA ought to be able to give up the 1993-figures though, to give an estimate on proportion of housing likely to be in the subgroup he wants.

                Kj

                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > @krjWe have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example.
                > Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs the correct figures. So back of an envelope style estimates will not suffice. I gave the following (back in Sept) from your friend and mine (also Dave W's) Mark Wadsworth, fag packet maestro supreme:Total UK property values (ie land and buildings)=£6,ooo billions made up of housing= £5,000 billion,commercial= £750 billion,farmland= £250 billion.(All land and buildings except, obviously, farmland).These look alright to me (MW is not going to get his figures wrong) and anyway since the VoA does n't have any contrary figures we may as well use our own.Dave W does not seem prepared to use them though. To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                > From: davewetzel42@...
                > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:13 +0100
                > Subject: [LandCafe] How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > I'm just back from Dublin asvocating LVT. The other Saturday I was speaking on LVT to the UK's "Labour Housing Group" who agreed to renew their support for LVT.
                >
                > They are a small group but very influential in Labour circles with Nicky Gavron (the first Deputy Mayor of London) actually present. They discussed with me the problem of getting voters liable to pay LVT on their homes to vote for LVT to replace Council Tax and/or other taxes.
                >
                > (or "How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving"? We discussed homestead allowance and rollover but Nicky and some others seemed not to be convinced that Labour politicians will suppport a new (even if replacement) tax on homes.
                >
                > Following from this what if Labour committed to introduced LVT on ALL land - except for occupied homes worth less than £2m - and currently paying Council Tax (who would continue to pay Council Tax instead of LVT). [Council Tax is the UK's domestic residentail property tax on occupiers].
                >
                > Occupied homes less than £2m in value and their gardens probably represent less than 5% of the total UK land area. So full LVT would be levied on the remaining 95% including all empty homes, the most expensive houses, house-builders' land banks, all land used for business and commerce, all farmland, all brownfield sites in towns and cities, all windfarms, the spectrum and airport landing slots etc.
                >
                > I recognise that this approach would not have the same beneficial effects as full LVT on all land including occupied residential properties but would it be an approach worth supporting to introduce LVT to the UK?
                >
                > www.LabourLand.org
                > www.TheIU.org
                > www.course.earthrights.net
                >
              • John David Kromkowski
                If one is going to work out a system with exemption/discount (or even benefits - like council tax has for low income, there are benefits calculators which
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  If one is going to work out a system with exemption/discount (or even benefits - like council tax has for low income, there are benefits calculators which could be modified EG, http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/benefits_calculator/wbc-xpSp12/wbc-xpSp12.htm ),  you've got to have the data.

                  I think it would be pretty straight forward to work about benefits calculator (for individuals and/or households) that would do the trick.  That is something that falls somewhere between a Universal Individual (or household) Exemption and a CD for the unemployment or working poor not making a living wage.  

                  So a straight tax on on land and then benefits (which would be like the housing allocation benefit that the council tax has as I think I understand it.  (which might only be to ameliorate a portion of the land value tax).

                  The best figures to use should come from the VoA  who obviously has experience and whoever is coming up with the council tax values.

                  For example,  I looked at the Wycombe District and picked and address at random

                  21, Lincoln House, Brookfield Road, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP10 0QA

                  Some how that property got "assessed" such that its value ended it up in B band and its council tax was

                  Amount 2012-13: £1145.91

                  The data is somewhere in some computer and in coming up with the assesment to put it into a band, I am pretty sure the land was assessed separately as part of the process.


                  It might be old and wrong but, you've got to start somewhere.  Start with what the government is already doing via council tax and business rates.

                  JDK




                  On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:25 AM, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                  @krj
                  We have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example.
                  Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs the correct figures. So back of an envelope style estimates  will not suffice. I gave the following (back in Sept) from your friend and mine (also Dave W's) Mark Wadsworth, fag packet maestro supreme:Total UK property values (ie land and buildings)=£6,ooo billions made up of housing= £5,000 billion,commercial= £750 billion,farmland= £250 billion.(All land and buildings except, obviously, farmland).These look alright to me (MW is not going to get his figures wrong) and anyway since the VoA does n't have any contrary figures we may as well use our own.Dave W does not seem prepared to use them though. 

                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  From: davewetzel42@...
                  Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:13 +0100
                  Subject: [LandCafe] How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

                   

                  I'm just back from Dublin asvocating LVT.
                   
                  The other Saturday I was speaking on LVT to the UK's "Labour Housing Group" who agreed to renew their support for LVT.
                  They are a small group but very influential in Labour circles with Nicky Gavron (the first Deputy Mayor of London) actually present. They discussed with me the problem of getting voters liable to pay LVT on their homes to vote for LVT to replace Council Tax and/or other taxes.
                   (or "How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving"?
                  We discussed homestead allowance and rollover but Nicky and some others seemed not to be convinced that Labour politicians will suppport a new (even if replacement) tax on homes.
                  Following from this what if Labour committed to introduced LVT on ALL land - except for occupied homes worth less than £2m - and currently paying Council Tax (who would continue to pay Council Tax instead of LVT). [Council Tax is the UK's domestic residentail property tax on occupiers].
                  Occupied homes less than £2m in value and their gardens probably represent less than 5% of the total UK land area. So full LVT would be levied on the remaining 95% including all empty homes, the most expensive houses, house-builders' land banks, all land used for business and commerce, all farmland, all brownfield sites in towns and cities, all windfarms, the spectrum and airport landing slots etc.
                  I recognise that this approach would not have the same beneficial effects as full LVT on all land including occupied residential properties but would it be an approach worth supporting to introduce LVT to the UK?





                  --
                  Very truly yours

                  John D. Kromkowski
                  6803 York Road -- Suite 207
                  Baltimore, MD 21212

                  Tel     410-377-6248
                  Fax     410-372-0624
                  Mobile  443-271-0500

                  This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

                  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.
                • k_r_johansen
                  ... Exactly. There are so many benefits and separate taxes in the UK system that there are countless ways of sneaking in a LVT/UIE without anyone noticing.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > If one is going to work out a system with exemption/discount (or even
                    > benefits - like council tax has for low income, there are benefits
                    > calculators which could be modified EG,
                    > http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/benefits_calculator/wbc-xpSp12/wbc-xpSp12.htm ),
                    > you've got to have the data.
                    >
                    > I think it would be pretty straight forward to work about benefits
                    > calculator (for individuals and/or households) that would do the trick.
                    > That is something that falls somewhere between a Universal Individual (or
                    > household) Exemption and a CD for the unemployment or working poor not
                    > making a living wage.
                    >
                    > So a straight tax on on land and then benefits (which would be like the
                    > housing allocation benefit that the council tax has as I think I understand
                    > it. (which might only be to ameliorate a portion of the land value tax).
                    >

                    Exactly. There are so many benefits and separate taxes in the UK system that there are countless ways of sneaking in a LVT/UIE without anyone noticing. They already have council tax benefit, and for the working population, you could do it as a straight deduction from income taxes exactly equal council benefit. Revalue residental properties, add new bands to council-tax and base it more on land values, steer business rates towards the same valuation method, and they're practically there.

                    Kj

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