Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> I won't dwell on the embarrassing business of a certain Canadian's "refusal to know" that JS Mill based his hold-steady form of LVT on aggregate assessment ,despite the textual evidence adduced (twice),No such evidence was adduced, because Mill's LVT proposal was not based on aggregate assessment but on the assessment of each individual land parcel. David's reading comprehension skills, never very reliable, have let him down again.
> there is also the lack of any curiosity about Canada's rich past of monetary reform.Bible Bill Aberhart was elected to run Alberta on the basis of Douglasite Social Credit but actually introduced Gesellian velocity money .What form did this take?Did the Alberta money have stamps attached to it like in Worgl and the Tyrol? Or was some other method used to speed up the money? Conversely, did Worgl etc adopt the land reform side of Gesellian theory?I invite David to do some research on these questions -- and then point us to the sources he finds rather than attempt to summarize them.
> It is very difficult to deal with the issues when Georgists insist on playing with half a deck of the same old dog-eared cards.An odd claim from one who rejects novel ideas like UIE and RPE out of hand, but relies on Major Douglas as his most recent source, not to mention Gesell, Mill and Marx.
> For instance TR Johansen queries my queries of the UIE saying my alternative souped-up Mill hold steady scheme, to bang on LVT at the start and then scalp all land value rises,This is confused, as there is no LVT under David's scheme UNTIL there are land value rises.
> won't wipe out the inflation caused by the accompanying credit reform schemes .But Gesell's freigeld, which was one proposal, does not increase the money supply, just speeds it up (Keynes' permanent slight inflation ideas are a pale imitation: he, of course, ripped off Gesell,as completely as George did Mill.)Another failure of reading comprehension.
> Then there is the discounted price method favoured by latter-day Douglasites whereby shops sell goods at cost and the government then supplies the manufacturers with the profit mark -up.The shop itself being in business as a charity....
> So the amount of money in circulation exactly equals the number of goods produced and consumed (no intervals).Money and goods are not commensurable.
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
>Sorry for the late response. What do you mean by collateral then? Land/buildings can be handed over to the lender as well, can't it? Both loans secured on a physical object that can redeem the debt by reposession, and personal debts, should be entirely legal. I'm not sure if you mean that any specific institutional aspect of mortgage collateral should be abolished, or the idea, which is kind of the basis of risk-taking and economic growth IMO. If anything, the american model is better than what I know as mortgages. AFAIU you can hand over your property and "walk away". No such thing exists here. Even if you hand back the property, you are personally liable for the redemption of the debt, and a creditor sale of a property (moveable objects as well), can only be done through the courts.
> Quoting k_r_johansen on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:45:37 -0000:
> Interesting concept. In most cases, owners servicing mortgages would just
> use their UIEs as an offset to the LVT and continue making the payments.
> If we are talking about a straight swap from income tax to
> LVT, most people would theoretically still have the ability to
> pay. The problem is, and I admit I'm looking at this from the
> Bankster's side, that the collateral just isn't there any more
> (assuming capital values do fall, which I believe they will),
> and the change in risk has implications. Imagine that the country
> suddenly changed systems, and (by the figures I gave), a debt load
> of somewhere around 50% of GDP changed from being collateralized
> to more or less personal loans, but at an interest of 4%.
> Govt. would have to step in as a guarantee in either scheme.
> Abolish collateral. Even more than land privilege, that
> bankster concept keeps people enslaved. If it isn't
> outright security; i.e., something that can be handed over
> to the lender, thus entirely discharging the debt; the
> debt is unconscionable, and ought to be nullified outright.
> Obviously, this also requires concomitant abolition of
> Glass-Steagall (FDIC). Write down all deposits in any given
> institution proportionate to nullification of its assets.