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

Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... (a) Not really so many. A handful at most. (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get
      > > occasional serious hearings in the UK.
      > > As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
      >
      > Walto, the USA HAS LVT in many towns. The UK has ZERO !
      >

      (a) Not really so many. A handful at most.
      (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement tax rate: that isn't actually LVT, though it's better than nothing.

      W
    • John
      ... Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get
        > > > occasional serious hearings in the UK.
        > > > As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
        > >
        > > Walto, the USA HAS LVT in many towns. The UK has ZERO !
        > >
        >
        > (a) Not really so many. A handful at most.
        > (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement tax rate: that isn't actually LVT, though it's better than nothing.
        >

        Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
      • derekrss
        ... But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue.
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get
          > > > > occasional serious hearings in the UK.
          > > > > As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
          > > >
          > > > Walto, the USA HAS LVT in many towns. The UK has ZERO !
          > > >
          > >
          > > (a) Not really so many. A handful at most.
          > > (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement tax rate: that isn't actually LVT, though it's better than nothing.
          > >
          >
          > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
          >
          But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. Almost the sole source in fact.

          During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th century. And I don't believe that it was only coincidence that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

          Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the 19th.

          So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge historical example.
        • John
          ... to work. The UK has zero examples. ... implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. Almost the sole
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:

            > > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT 
            > > has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.

            > But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has 
            > never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the 
            > 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. 
            > Almost the sole source in fact. 

            Derek, I am fully aware of that. I posted  this about 3 months ago:

            My sister has done research on this and has revealed that our ancestor, Sir John Miller owned the district of Islington in London from 1613. Islington is now a very expensive fashionable district just north of the financial district, The City of London.

            He paid land tax...
            http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45434
            "Islington pays the sum of 2001l. 11s. 9d. [£2,001] to the land-tax, which is at the rate of about 1s. 6d. in the pound."
            Unfortunately his grandsons, etc, sold off parts of Islington after he died, not doing what the Grosvenor family (Duke of Westminster) did with their less valuable fields at Mayfair to the west of London. The Grosvenors did  not sell their land and only leased taking in rent. Otherwise I might have been a Duke and one of the world's richest men. :-)

            But the family goes on... a part of the Millers went to then British America and married into the Beck family. John Beck was in the Revolutionary war against the British commanding Fort Henry, at one time and also Fort Pitt which became Pittsburgh - you can blame me if you want Dan Sullivan! :-) . Beck is mentioned in American history. A part of the Becks/Millers returned to Britain, hence how I came about.

            But the revolutionary war need never have come about if the British government had taken notice of Adam Smith. Smith said tax land values in the UK to reduce government debt and not the colonists  I am not sure if he wanted to tax land in America as well.  Then the war need never have occurred.... and a part of the family then would never have been a hero of the USA. :-)

            > During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an 
            > army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and 
            > still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income 
            > tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th 
            > century. 

            Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.  The Tory party, party of the landowners, reintroduced it in 1842, as they kept pushing tax from rich landowners to the poor.
            Initially it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor. 

            It was no coincidence that as tax was gradually pushed from land to people's labour, the world dominating British economy gradually dwindled. OK, the rise of the USA, by seizing land and its resources to its west, and the creation of Germany as one state meant there was some strong competition as well.

            How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the British did as they had no need to. The British moved, and lived, all over the world, because they never had access to cheap land to live on in the UK - they appropriated others land, or introduced an alien land system to them, but that is another point. 

            > And I don't believe that it was only coincidence 
            > that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion 
            > of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout 
            > the 19th and 20th centuries.

            That is correct. Also, as Michael Hudson noted, the British had an obsession in rigging the free market to have cheap labour, which brought down its empire - well the empire faded and then was just given away. A similar thing happened with the Roman empire. Having cheap labour is ingrained in the management psyche in the UK. 
             
            > Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's 
            > dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty 
            > and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic 
            > growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. 
            > And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in 
            > practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, 
            > which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, 
            > let alone the 19th.

            Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell people today that was a success and should be used now. They laugh at you.  Michael Hudson studied the ancient civilization's economies. Mention that they had a better base system and people laugh at you. People are brainwashed that as time went on we got things better all around - consumer goods, and cheap energy, gives them that impression.  That is not the case with economics.  In the UK, tell people it was better in the early 1800s and they point to Dickens. 
             
            > So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. 
            > But there is a huge historical example.

            The example no one takes any notice of, as they think all was bad hundreds of years ago full of grovelling poverty. Pre the industrial revolution, the average British worker worked about 3.5 to days as he had no need to work flat out for 10 hours a day and 6 days a week, as was the case when the industrial revolution came. Many cursed the onset of mainly slave labour, the machines they never mined too much - Ned Ludd was one, who was hung.

            BTW, when income tax was introduce we had schedule A, which a tax on land value. The Tory party, them again, got rid of it in 1964. Before 1964, house prices were pretty stable to today, Since schedule A went we have been perpetually short of homes and price have gone though the roof.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#History

          • k_r_johansen
            ... You ve got council tax and the more LVT-like, but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest portion of govt. funded by property-related taxes in the OECD.
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

              > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
              >

              You've got council tax and the more LVT-like, but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest portion of govt. funded by property-related taxes in the OECD. I'll bet you'd notice if they were abolished.
              Thanks for the swedish link btw, excellent!

              Kj
            • John
              ... KRJ, The UK does have indirect land taxation, so does property tax in any country. Business rates is based on an estimate of the annual rent of the
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
                >
                > > Walto, But even with such small
                > > implementations, LVT has proven to
                > > work. The UK has zero examples.
                >
                > You've got council tax and the more LVT-like,
                > but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest
                > portion of govt. funded by property-related
                > taxes in the OECD.

                KRJ, The UK does have indirect land taxation, so does property tax in any country. Business rates is based on an estimate of the annual rent of the business premises, so more LVT like, but domestic Council tax and Business rates do take into account the building and only premises that are used. Vacant land is not taxed, so speculators can land bank and make a killing.

                "Property-related" taxes can mean most of the buildings in an assessment. "Property" is the building and land together.

                > Thanks for the swedish link btw, excellent!

                No probs.
              • derekrss
                ... Sorry, John. I wasn t aware of that. Looks like I was trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs again. Cheers
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:
                  >
                  > > > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT > > has proven
                  > to work. The UK has zero examples.
                  > >
                  > > But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has > never been
                  > implemented, the UK Land tax of the > 17th and 18th centuries was the
                  > major source of revenue. > Almost the sole source in fact.
                  > Derek, I am fully aware of that. I posted this about 3 months ago:
                  > My sister has done research on this and has revealed that our ancestor,
                  > Sir John Miller owned the district of Islington in London from 1613.
                  > Islington is now a very expensive fashionable district just north of the
                  > financial district, The City of London.
                  > He paid land
                  > tax...http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45434"Islingto\
                  > n pays the sum of 2001l. 11s. 9d. [£2,001] to the land-tax, which is
                  > at the rate of about 1s. 6d. in the pound.

                  Sorry, John. I wasn't aware of that. Looks like I was trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs again.

                  Cheers
                • roy_langston
                  ... Nationmaster claims the UK gets more public revenue from property taxation than any other OECD country (which probably means more than any country, maybe
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

                    > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Walto, But even with such small
                    > > > implementations, LVT has proven to
                    > > > work. The UK has zero examples.
                    > >
                    > > You've got council tax and the more LVT-like,
                    > > but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest
                    > > portion of govt. funded by property-related
                    > > taxes in the OECD.
                    >
                    > KRJ, The UK does have indirect land taxation, so does property tax in any country. Business rates is based on an estimate of the annual rent of the business premises, so more LVT like, but domestic Council tax and Business rates do take into account the building and only premises that are used. Vacant land is not taxed, so speculators can land bank and make a killing.
                    >
                    > "Property-related" taxes can mean most of the buildings in an assessment. "Property" is the building and land together.

                    Nationmaster claims the UK gets more public revenue from property taxation than any other OECD country (which probably means more than any country, maybe excepting HK):

                    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_com_of_tax_pro_tax-taxation-components-of-property-tax

                    I can't vouch for the accuracy of this statistic, and of course the UK property taxation systems are slanted towards taxing improvements rather than land.

                    -- Roy Langston
                  • roy_langston
                    ... It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income from landed property. At that time in Britain, income meant passive ownership income, especially
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

                      > Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.

                      It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income from landed property. At that time in Britain, "income" meant passive ownership income, especially income from land and debt instruments, not earned income, which was called, "wages."

                      > Initially
                      > it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to
                      > gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.

                      More accurately, onto the productive.

                      > How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it
                      > that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could
                      > make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap
                      > transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to
                      > land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the
                      > British did as they had no need to.

                      That's clearly false. The USA was right behind Britain in industrialization in the first half of the 19th C, and there was a superabundance of good land for the taking.

                      > Having cheap labour is
                      > ingrained in the management psyche in the UK.

                      But they are too stupid to figure out that you can't have cheap labor when labor has to support a large and exorbitantly parasitic landowning and debt-owning rentier class, as well as supporting government, the laborers themselves, and their families.

                      > Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell people today that was a
                      > success and should be used now. They laugh at you.

                      Same in Japan, where the LVT was explicit, and paid for most public spending during the single generation when Japan grew from a poverty-stricken feudal backwater to a global economic, industrial and military power.

                      -- Roy Langston
                    • derekrss
                      ... I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan,
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
                        >

                        I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.

                        But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".

                        I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.

                        But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
                      • walto
                        ... Yes, I think that s basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
                          > >
                          >
                          > I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
                          >
                          > But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
                          >
                          > I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
                          >
                          > But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
                          >

                          Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.

                          W
                        • derekrss
                          ... Understood, Walto. However when I type Democrats for LVT into Google, I get results about the Liberals in the UK. Even worse, typing Republicans for
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 11, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
                            > >
                            > > But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
                            > >
                            > > I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
                            > >
                            > > But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
                            > >
                            >
                            > Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.
                            >

                            Understood, Walto. However when I type "Democrats for LVT" into Google, I get results about the Liberals in the UK. Even worse, typing "Republicans for LVT" doesn't return anything relevant or useful. So I wonder if there might still be a place for internal lobbying groups for each main US party at a national level. The national level may not be important for Federal taxation purposes but as a way of promoting LVT at the local level it is important because when it comes to political parties, the national level generally leads the local level.

                            On the Press side of things I don't know what to suggest. I suppose that the UK is just lucky to have a couple of national newspapers that are prepared to print favourable comment on LVT reasonably often. Luckily the Internet is making that less important than it used to be but it would be nice if the New York Times or US Today said something nice about LVT every month or two. Even every year or two would be an improvement!
                          • John
                            ... property. At that time in Britain, income meant passive ownership income, especially income from land and debt instruments, not earned income,
                            Message 13 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment

                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:
                              >
                              > > Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.
                              >
                              > It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income 
                              > from landed property. At that time in Britain, "income" 
                              > meant passive ownership income, especially income 
                              > from land and debt instruments, not earned income, 
                              > which was called, "wages."

                              Correct. In 1842 it was also the case but income tax gradually fell on wages.

                              > > Initially
                              > > it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to
                              > > gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.
                              >
                              > More accurately, onto the productive.

                              ...and poor.  :)
                               
                              > > How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it
                              > > that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could
                              > > make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap
                              > > transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to
                              > > land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the
                              > > British did as they had no need to.
                              >
                              > That's clearly false. The USA was right behind Britain in 
                              > industrialization in the first half of the 19th C, and there 
                              > was a superabundance of good land for the taking.

                              All other countries were way behind the UK in industrialization in the early 1800s. The USA came into it about mid-century based a lot on what the British had done. The steam engine, and its applications, was the key. The sheer innovation and production coming out of the UK was startling. 

                              Look at what was happening in 1829 in Liverpool. The first ever tunnel bored under a metropolis - 1.24 miles long, when most other countries didn't even know what a train was. 
                               
                              > > Having cheap labour is
                              > > ingrained in the management psyche in the UK.
                              >
                              > But they are too stupid to figure out that you 
                              > can't have cheap labor when labor has to 
                              > support a large and exorbitantly parasitic 
                              > landowning and debt-owning rentier class, 
                              > as well as supporting government, the laborers 
                              > themselves, and their families.

                              > > Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell 
                              > > people today that was a success and should be 
                              > > used now. They laugh at you.
                              >
                              > Same in Japan, where the LVT was explicit, and 
                              > paid for most public spending during the single 
                              > generation when Japan grew from a poverty-stricken 
                              > feudal backwater to a global economic, industrial 
                              > and military power.
                              >
                              > -- Roy Langston

                            • mattbieker
                              ... I agree with Roy that it s important to be clear and accurate. Too many confusions of thought arise from imprecise usage of language. I ve noticed a lot
                              Message 14 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@>
                                > wrote:
                                > >
                                > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.
                                > >
                                > > It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income > from landed
                                > property. At that time in Britain, "income" > meant passive ownership
                                > income, especially income > from land and debt instruments, not earned
                                > income, > which was called, "wages."
                                > Correct. In 1842 it was also the case but income tax gradually fell on
                                > wages.
                                >
                                > > > Initially
                                > > > it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to
                                > > > gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.
                                > >
                                > > More accurately, onto the productive.
                                > ...and poor. :)

                                I agree with Roy that it's important to be clear and accurate. Too many confusions of thought arise from imprecise usage of language. I've noticed a lot of people with a strong sense of social justice, who in all rights should be our allies, oppose the LVT fiercely, due to their belief that it doesn't "tax the rich" enough. They confuse cause and effect, and do so mostly, I think, due to confusions of terms.

                                If you did a venn diagram, "poor" and "productive" would be circles with massive overlap; in fact, that's an idea that we should try to get people to understand, as there's much conventional wisdom that the rich are productive, and the poor are leaches. That said, large overlap between the two classes does not make them one in the same.

                                The productive poor are poor because our tax system doesn't make sense. They're not penalized for being poor, they're penalized for being productive.
                              • John David Kromkowski
                                Derrekrss: Now granted, it wasn t all roses. The absence of a citizen s dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant.
                                Message 15 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Derrekrss: "Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the 19th.

                                  So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge historical example."

                                  JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value taxation is a huge historical failure.  Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality.  So if there really was LVT, then there shouldn't  have been "rampant poverty and inequality".  I'd have to say that LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.

                                  The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound.  At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education.  But CD is not a necessary thing to do that.  Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too. Even work week hour laws will do that.

                                  JDK



                                  On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:59 AM, derekrss <derekrss@...> wrote:
                                   

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


                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get
                                  > > > > occasional serious hearings in the UK.
                                  > > > > As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Walto, the USA HAS LVT in many towns. The UK has ZERO !
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > (a) Not really so many. A handful at most.
                                  > > (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement tax rate: that isn't actually LVT, though it's better than nothing.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
                                  >
                                  But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. Almost the sole source in fact.

                                  During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th century. And I don't believe that it was only coincidence that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

                                  Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the 19th.

                                  So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge historical example.




                                  --
                                  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.
                                • roy_langston
                                  ... No. Removal of people s rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries,
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

                                    > JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
                                    > taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality.

                                    No. Removal of people's rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, where the occasional "rentier behavior" by self-seeking bureaucrats was overshadowed by other government policies. The transfer of people's right to liberty to a privileged landowning rentier class, as in Britain, is the principal cause of inequality.

                                    > So if there really was
                                    > LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality".

                                    No, because Britain's LVT only redressed ONE side of the injustice of the enclosures. This is the key point I have been trying to explain, and shows why a UIE (or, second best, a CD) is necessary. Before the enclosures, most people had a right to use land: the village commons. With the enclosures, that right was forcibly removed and transferred to wealthy, privileged landowners. LVT removed part of the privilege enjoyed by landowners, but did nothing to restore the liberty right of the landless or justly compensate them for its removal.

                                    > LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
                                    > land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.

                                    Not really. The rich, powerful and greedy could no longer pocket enough land rent to slake their greed at home, and so sought it abroad using their influence in government to enlist the aid of the Royal Navy -- and army regiments swelled by young men dispossessed, by the enclosures, of their opportunities to earn a livelihood without supporting a parasitic landlord.

                                    > The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound.

                                    ?? HUH?? You've just claimed LVT was a failure in Britain because it didn't SOLVE poverty and inequality, right after Derek pointed out that the lack of a UIE (or, second best, a CD) in Britain was the REASON it didn't solve them! Talk about refusal to know!

                                    > At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
                                    > work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education.

                                    False. It would often make the difference between being able to afford the necessities of a decent life above the poverty line while working full time and not being able to afford them. It would also often make the difference between having to offer your labor to an employer immediately, on unfavorable terms, just to stay alive, and being able to hold out for a better situation or better terms. You clearly are not close to understanding the far-reaching implications of the dispossession of people's right to liberty, or its restoration.

                                    > But CD is not a necessary thing to do that.

                                    Right. But a UIE (or second best, a CD) is.

                                    > Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too.

                                    No, it would not, as already explained, and as proved by the socialist historical examples. In the absence of a UIE (or, second best, a CD), the burden of having to pay rent for access to opportunity consigns the least productive to poverty, no matter how much progress there is, or how little rent the landowning class pockets.

                                    > Even work week hour laws will do that.

                                    No, they will not, as already explained.

                                    -- Roy Langston
                                  • jdk_maryland_atty
                                    There is another alternative. I.e., that there really wasn t land value tax going on in Britain. Or even that LVT really only becomes necessary when society
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      There is another alternative. I.e., that there really wasn't land value tax going on in Britain. Or even that LVT really only becomes necessary when society shifts from Rural and Agragrian to Urban and Industrial.

                                      So, what is purported to be a historical example of LVT is not actually a historical example of LVT!

                                      Unless the tax was high enough to make the landed aristocrat break up the land and give it back to the people, then it really isn't LVT and most importantly because royalty (the Crown) was exempt from the LVT and but also controlled most of the land, it really wasn't lvt at all.

                                      What the Soviets and the Party were were just new parasitic rentierists, themselves. I.e. the party became the new royalty and were equavalent to the Crown with respect to land (and worse with respect to "rights" of people - i.e. no Magna Carta)

                                      In a transparent and free democracy, the UIE would be great but is not necessary if there really is LVT on all land. The CD is neither necessary nor such a great idea and it in any case is no way dependent upon LVT, because it can be funded all kinds of different and not so good taxes.

                                      JDK


                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
                                      > > taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality.
                                      >
                                      > No. Removal of people's rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, where the occasional "rentier behavior" by self-seeking bureaucrats was overshadowed by other government policies. The transfer of people's right to liberty to a privileged landowning rentier class, as in Britain, is the principal cause of inequality.
                                      >
                                      > > So if there really was
                                      > > LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality".
                                      >
                                      > No, because Britain's LVT only redressed ONE side of the injustice of the enclosures. This is the key point I have been trying to explain, and shows why a UIE (or, second best, a CD) is necessary. Before the enclosures, most people had a right to use land: the village commons. With the enclosures, that right was forcibly removed and transferred to wealthy, privileged landowners. LVT removed part of the privilege enjoyed by landowners, but did nothing to restore the liberty right of the landless or justly compensate them for its removal.
                                      >
                                      > > LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
                                      > > land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.
                                      >
                                      > Not really. The rich, powerful and greedy could no longer pocket enough land rent to slake their greed at home, and so sought it abroad using their influence in government to enlist the aid of the Royal Navy -- and army regiments swelled by young men dispossessed, by the enclosures, of their opportunities to earn a livelihood without supporting a parasitic landlord.
                                      >
                                      > > The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound.
                                      >
                                      > ?? HUH?? You've just claimed LVT was a failure in Britain because it didn't SOLVE poverty and inequality, right after Derek pointed out that the lack of a UIE (or, second best, a CD) in Britain was the REASON it didn't solve them! Talk about refusal to know!
                                      >
                                      > > At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
                                      > > work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education.
                                      >
                                      > False. It would often make the difference between being able to afford the necessities of a decent life above the poverty line while working full time and not being able to afford them. It would also often make the difference between having to offer your labor to an employer immediately, on unfavorable terms, just to stay alive, and being able to hold out for a better situation or better terms. You clearly are not close to understanding the far-reaching implications of the dispossession of people's right to liberty, or its restoration.
                                      >
                                      > > But CD is not a necessary thing to do that.
                                      >
                                      > Right. But a UIE (or second best, a CD) is.
                                      >
                                      > > Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too.
                                      >
                                      > No, it would not, as already explained, and as proved by the socialist historical examples. In the absence of a UIE (or, second best, a CD), the burden of having to pay rent for access to opportunity consigns the least productive to poverty, no matter how much progress there is, or how little rent the landowning class pockets.
                                      >
                                      > > Even work week hour laws will do that.
                                      >
                                      > No, they will not, as already explained.
                                      >
                                      > -- Roy Langston
                                      >
                                    • JDKromkowski
                                      Part of the issue of lack of lvt talk at federal level in the US is our constitution requires that a land tax must be apportioned among the states . This is
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Part of the issue of lack of lvt talk at federal level in the US is our constitution requires that a land tax must be "apportioned among the states".  This is really not that complicated BUT there is no institutional memory of exactly how to do this, because it hasn't been done in like 175 years.  

                                        The last lvt bill was introduced in 1935 by a PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz.  His bill was a tax on all land valued more than 3000. Never made it out of committee. It is pretty clear from the language that even he didn't understand how to write an apportioned tax bill.  He was already a generation beyond George's son who was in congress and did probably understand how an apportioned land tax would work, but he along with progressives thought the 16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.

                                        The second is problem is that in the 60s with guys like romney's father and culminating in prop 13  created this whole anti property tax mantra that it hurt the middle class home owner and was not progressive.  And dems bought into this idea and didn't want to be seen as pro any form of property tax.  The history is longer and more nuanced but - in a nutshell.

                                        Jdk

                                        Sent from my iPad

                                        On Nov 11, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

                                         



                                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
                                        >
                                        > But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
                                        >
                                        > I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
                                        >
                                        > But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
                                        >

                                        Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.

                                        W

                                      • Scott Bergeson
                                        Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500: ___Jdk___ PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the 16th amendment would
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500:

                                          ___Jdk___
                                          PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
                                          16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
                                          applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
                                          were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
                                          be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
                                          -----

                                          Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
                                          applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
                                          Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
                                          been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?
                                        • derekrss
                                          ... It depends on how high the LVT rate is and on what the revenue is used for. Assuming no CD or UIE, if the rate is set low and the revenue is used to pay
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Derrekrss: "Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's
                                            > dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality
                                            > was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation
                                            > was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too
                                            > far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672,
                                            > which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the
                                            > 19th.
                                            >
                                            > So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge
                                            > historical example."
                                            >
                                            > JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
                                            > taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier
                                            > behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality. So if there really was
                                            > LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality". I'd
                                            > have to say that LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
                                            > land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.
                                            >
                                            > The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is
                                            > really not sound. At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
                                            > work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and
                                            > education. But CD is not a necessary thing to do that. Progress
                                            > unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that
                                            > too. Even work week hour laws will do that.
                                            >

                                            It depends on how high the LVT rate is and on what the revenue is used for. Assuming no CD or UIE, if the rate is set low and the revenue is used to pay large salaries to a few thousand politicians, civil servants and military officers, there is little difference in its effect from using rent to pay a few thousand landlords. If the revenue is set high and used to pay a low wage to an army of soldiers consisting of half the able-bodied population, there is little difference from LVT plus a CD, (except that it ties up half the A-B population in unproductive labour). The first option will encourage growth to some extent but won't do much to touch inequality. The second option will give near-equality but poverty will be widespread because of the lack of productive work being done.

                                            In the case of the 18th century United Kingdom, we can certainly point at the economic growth effects of the LVT-like land tax but the tax was never at a high enough level to change the income distribution much. Also no revaluation was done after the initial valuation of 1672. Moreover when UK government spending at the end of the Napoleonic wars approached a figure which could have justified a land tax level high enough to make a difference to inequality, the landowners in Parliament baulked at paying and so we got Peel's income tax when revaluation plus a higher land tax rate would have been the better solution to fix the revenue shortfall.
                                          • John David Kromkowski
                                            You are incorrect. The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax income from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment. There was
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 13, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              You are incorrect.

                                              The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax "income" from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment.  There was an income tax on wages in the civil war. This is because taxing wages is an "indirect" tax because it is a tax on the transaction of getting paid for labor.

                                              For the non-US and may some of the US, an apportioned tax is required for "direct" taxes. Apportionment means that each state covers a portion of the revenue to be raised in proportion to its population. So a state with 10% of the population comes up with the 10% of the revenue.  

                                              There are basically only two types of taxes that are "direct" are a capitation (tax on being a person, a head tax) and a tax on Land (The SCt again noted this in dicta in the Health Care Act case.  A tax on land is a direct tax and must be apportioned.)

                                              If you are really interested in this topic.  I'd suggest reading these cases in this order

                                              Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) (also first case challenging constitutionality of a law.)
                                              Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
                                              Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

                                              ___Jdk___

                                              PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
                                              16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
                                              applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
                                              were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
                                              be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
                                              -----
                                              SB:
                                              Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
                                              applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
                                              Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
                                              been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?


                                              On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500:

                                              ___Jdk___
                                              PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
                                              16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
                                              applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
                                              were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
                                              be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
                                              -----

                                              Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
                                              applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
                                              Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
                                              been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?




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