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

Re: [LandCafe] Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.