Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> I can understand an annoyance with "land-value taxers", but the endlessIt is Harry who lacks such understanding. Rent is a matter of just compensation. But compensation is not only owed BY those who benefit unjustly. It is also owed TO those who are harmed unjustly.
> discussion about the nonsensical exemptions - both of them - does serve to
> highlight a lack of understanding of the reasons for collecting Rent.
> A full collection of Rent is necessary to begin the assault on privilegeCollecting rent publicly rather than privately won't do that. Only restoring the individual right to liberty (to live at an acceptable minimal standard without paying anyone rent for access to what nature provided, via something like the UIE) can do that.
> and to rescue the legion of poor and underpaid from their present
> How much more exciting and worthwhile is a policy of ending poverty andThe proposed exemptions are not handouts any more than the universal individual income tax exemption is a handout; that's just a fabrication on Harry's part.
> deprivation for good than acceptance of these tragic circumstances followed
> by inadequate handouts of various kinds (including the presently advocated exemptions).
-- 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.