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

Re: [LandCafe] Fred Harrison does not say "Land Value Tax"

Expand Messages
  • David Brooks
    Hear! Hear! David Brooks Freedom, the only end On 04-Feb-13 5:20 AM, Harry Pollard wrote:   John, Back in the 50 s I had made a distinction between Georgists
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hear! Hear!

      David Brooks
      Freedom, the only end
      On 04-Feb-13 5:20 AM, Harry Pollard wrote:
       
      John,

      Back in the 50's I had made a distinction between Georgists and land-value taxers. This point I publicized and my courses concentrate on the Georgist attempt to proceed toward a society of 'Liberty and Justice for All" rather than pushing a better tax proposal. The latter seems to me to be rather a bloodless policy which places us in the same category as the other tax reformers but with perhaps a more difficult reform for people to understand (than,for example, the flat tax).

      Harry

      ********************
      The Alumni Group 
      The Henry George School
      of Los Angeles
      Tujunga   CA   90243
      (818) 352-4141
      ********************


      On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:05 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
       

      Fred Harrison speaking. He said he wasted 40 years of his life promoting LVT. He said Land Value Tax is a forbidden word to him. He approaches the matter from a different angle.

      https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM



    • walto
      Ooooooh. As everybody knows, I simply *LOVE* these bi-monthy discussions of naming conventions. May it go on for at least a couple of weeks! W
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 4, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Ooooooh. As everybody knows, I simply *LOVE* these bi-monthy discussions of naming conventions.

        May it go on for at least a couple of weeks!

        W
      • John
        ... Excellent comment Ed.
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 4, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Ed" wrote:
          >
          > Roy Langston wrote:
          >
          > Fred often strikes me as being a bit impatient: "We have to do this
          > now." Just because he hasn't succeeded _yet_ doesn't mean he was
          > wasting his time. He was raising consciousness. As Edison said, "I
          > haven't failed. I now know 9,000 things that won't work." We also
          > know some things that won't work, like the Georgist Single Tax.
          >
          > This is a struggle that began more than 5,000 years ago. Even if we
          > don't win it in our lifetimes, it doesn't mean we won't win.
          >
          > Ed Dodson here:
          > The great urgency and concern expressed by Fred I share. Our footprint
          > on the planet is heavy. Our numbers are increasing at a rate far
          > greater than our progress in social organization toward just
          > societies. The evidence indicates (at least to Fred and some of us)
          > that we are running out of time to accomplish change peacefully and
          > before billions of people are swallowed up by the conflicts now on the
          > horizon.

          Excellent comment Ed.
        • John
          ... Nice one Andrew. I was aware of the term Lo-Tax but never knew it was nailed down by Alter.
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 4, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, ADuffield1@... wrote:
            >
            > Compiling an LVT briefing paper for Scottish Liberal Democrats last
            > year, I coined the term 'Lo-Tax' (Location Taxation) which ALTER has
            > now adopted as a euphemism for the reform we seek. For once, such a
            > term allows us - rather than our opponents - to hijack the language of
            > economics, helping talk of a Lo-Tax economy to take a slightly
            > different slant.
            >
            > Fred Harrison's triple dilemma - which I think we share - seems to be
            > that:
            >
            > a) it is fatal to talk about LVT as a tax (which of course it isn't),
            > yet if we try to call it anything else it is portrayed as a tax in
            > sheep's clothing by our opponents;
            >
            > b) the 65% of (western) people who now have a stake in land (i.e. the
            > postage stamp-sized plot on which their home sits) are unwilling to
            > engage with any new tax - especially one on the property 'investment'
            > they hold in lieu of a pension;
            >
            > c) LVT, however it is dressed up and patiently explained as a
            > REPLACEMENT for deadweight taxation, is nonetheless viewed and
            > castigated as an ADDITIONAL fiscal burden by opponents and those who
            > have already closed their minds.
            >
            > I contend that most people who bother to vote in so-called democratic
            > elections will at least have passing familiarity with the concept of a
            > low-tax economy - typically lower personal tax with correspondingly
            > smaller state expenditure - although it is rarely ever given much
            > definition by politicians (they don't need to!). Despite this, I also
            > contend that on balance, for the 65% mentioned above, lower taxation
            > per se is a more attractive proposition that its fiscal opposite.
            >
            > Lo-Tax is thus a semantic way of hitching LVT to a more populist policy
            > ideal. It calls a spade a spade (even though we know its a shovel); it
            > sounds to the home-owning 65% that it might be something they should
            > support; and it suggests a lower overall level of tax than the status
            > quo (which would be true under an LVT regime for the same revenue
            > raised).
            >
            > The neo-classicists have twisted enough economic language. Playing them
            > at their own game may be the best way forward!
            >
            > Lo-Tax: lowering taxes by taxing locations.

            Nice one Andrew. I was aware of the term Lo-Tax but never knew it was nailed down by Alter.
          • Scott on the Spot
            Harrison has not changed his message, just the way he states it - he won t say the phrase Land Value Tax, but believes in collecting the economic rent as much
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 4, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Harrison has not changed his message, just the way he states it - he
              won't say the phrase Land Value Tax, but believes in collecting the
              economic rent as much as ever. He has stern words about Occupy wasting
              its time on non-core issues and how it might lose its potential if they
              don't focus on core issues.
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
              >
              > Fred Harrison speaking. He said he wasted 40 years of his life
              promoting LVT. He said Land Value Tax is a forbidden word to him. He
              approaches the matter from a different angle.
              >
              >
              https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDl\
              VM
              >
            • John
              ... Fred clearly has not changed his his message and appears not to be a Single Taxer. He tends to use the word rents meaning economic rent . This tends to
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 5, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Scott on the Spot" wrote:
                >
                > Harrison has not changed his message, just the way he
                > states it - he won't say the phrase Land Value Tax,
                > but believes in collecting the economic rent as much
                > as ever. He has stern words about Occupy wasting
                > its time on non-core issues and how it might lose
                > its potential if they don't focus on core issues.

                Fred clearly has not changed his his message and appears not to be a Single Taxer. He tends to use the word "rents" meaning "economic rent". This tends to confuse the uninitiated. Most do not understand what "economic rent" is, and regard it as simple profit and think nothing is wrong with that. Fred says, "we trade in generalities and get nowhere".

                A window of opportunity has arisen, the Credit Crunch. Fred is trying to make as much ground as possible in this window. And he has.

                The radio link is long at 1hr 24 mins, but worth listening to.
                https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM

                Occupy London appears to be very interested, and its is clear few had knew of land value capture, or as Harrison says, "paying for the services you receive" and "not paying twice". Fred comes out with some flowery expletives :) The Occupy groups around the world knew there was a problem (that is obvious) They never knew the root cause or a solution.

                Fred mentions that King, the governor of the Bank of England, stated that LVT cannot generate enough revenue without doing any calculations - typical. Bill Tideman in the USA did figures for the USA with the average American being far better off, stating the figures in dollars. That grabs people.
              • John
                https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM Fred Harrison stated that: the concept of Land Value Tax is philosophically
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 5, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM

                  Fred Harrison stated that:
                  "the concept of Land Value Tax is philosophically incoherent, politically stupid"

                  "If you are conceding that you are going to tax land values, you are saying to people at large, the land value belongs to you and we will tax you. People do not like tax."
                • walto
                  ... It s obvious that it s long been very important to Fred Harrison to say stuff that is over-the-top for attention. Apparently, he thinks that saying that
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM
                    >
                    > Fred Harrison stated that:
                    > "the concept of Land Value Tax is philosophically incoherent, politically stupid"
                    >
                    > "If you are conceding that you are going to tax land values, you are saying to people at large, the land value belongs to you and we will tax you. People do not like tax."
                    >


                    It's obvious that it's long been very important to Fred Harrison to say stuff that is over-the-top for attention. Apparently, he thinks that saying that everything he's ever written is "philosophically incoherent and politically stupid" is a winning strategy both for him personally and for geoism generally.

                    I doubt it myself, BWTHDIK?

                    W
                  • John
                    ... Walto, this might be useful. why people fail to understand land valuetaxation:
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 6, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM
                      > >
                      > > Fred Harrison stated that:
                      > > "the concept of Land Value Tax is philosophically incoherent, politically stupid"
                      > >
                      > > "If you are conceding that you are going to tax land values, you are saying to people at large, the land value belongs to you and we will tax you. People do not like tax."
                      >
                      > It's obvious that it's long been very important to Fred Harrison to say stuff that is over-the-top for attention. Apparently, he thinks that saying that everything he's ever written is "philosophically incoherent and politically stupid" is a winning strategy both for him personally and for geoism generally.
                      >
                      > I doubt it myself, BWTHDIK?

                      Walto, this might be useful.
                      why people fail to understand land valuetaxation:
                      http://southcentrallibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/611161/why-people-fail-to-understand-land-value-taxation
                    • harrypollard
                      Andrew. We don’t produce, play, or live, on land. We produce, play, or live, on locations. I’ve been arguing this for many years. I think you on to
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 7, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Andrew.

                         

                        We don’t produce, play, or live, on land. We produce, play, or live, on locations.

                         

                        I’ve been arguing this for many years. I think you on to something.

                         

                        While the monopoly aspects of land are cloudier – there is a lot of land - much of the US is pretty empty – the monopoly aspects of locations are easy to see. That this monopoly aspect leads to exorbitant prices is also pretty evident.

                         

                        Also, it’s easy to see that people cause Rents.

                         

                        When I chaired London’s Young Liberals, we would soapbox all over London – including all day Sunday at Marble Arch Speaker’s Corner. The Terrible Three – Roy Douglas, David Mills, and myself kept the crowds thinking (and entertained).

                         

                        Selling the idea of LVT was easy.

                         

                        Land-values are fairly small under the house where you live, but go into the High Street and land-values zoom. Why? It’s because people congregate in the High Street. The value of land is caused by you. Why should a landholder get the values you create? We should tax it and get rid of purchase taxes (this was a while ago).

                         

                        Anyway, this is the way we did it back then and the crowds (many hundreds) seemed to have no trouble getting it.

                         

                        Then we would get on to Free Trade and that would stir up the protectionists!

                         

                        Harry

                         

                        ***********************

                        The Alumni Group

                        Henry George School

                        Of Los Angeles

                        Tujunga  CA  91042

                        (818) 352-4141

                        ***********************

                         

                        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ADuffield1@...
                        Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 1:06 AM
                        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Fred Harrison does not say "Land Value Tax"

                         

                         

                        Compiling an LVT briefing paper for Scottish Liberal Democrats last
                        year, I coined the term 'Lo-Tax' (Location Taxation) which ALTER has
                        now adopted as a euphemism for the reform we seek. For once, such a
                        term allows us - rather than our opponents - to hijack the language of
                        economics, helping talk of a Lo-Tax economy to take a slightly
                        different slant.

                        Fred Harrison's triple dilemma - which I think we share - seems to be
                        that:

                        a) it is fatal to talk about LVT as a tax (which of course it isn't),
                        yet if we try to call it anything else it is portrayed as a tax in
                        sheep's clothing by our opponents;

                        b) the 65% of (western) people who now have a stake in land (i.e. the
                        postage stamp-sized plot on which their home sits) are unwilling to
                        engage with any new tax - especially one on the property 'investment'
                        they hold in lieu of a pension;

                        c) LVT, however it is dressed up and patiently explained as a
                        REPLACEMENT for deadweight taxation, is nonetheless viewed and
                        castigated as an ADDITIONAL fiscal burden by opponents and those who
                        have already closed their minds.

                        I contend that most people who bother to vote in so-called democratic
                        elections will at least have passing familiarity with the concept of a
                        low-tax economy - typically lower personal tax with correspondingly
                        smaller state expenditure - although it is rarely ever given much
                        definition by politicians (they don't need to!). Despite this, I also
                        contend that on balance, for the 65% mentioned above, lower taxation
                        per se is a more attractive proposition that its fiscal opposite.

                        Lo-Tax is thus a semantic way of hitching LVT to a more populist policy
                        ideal. It calls a spade a spade (even though we know its a shovel); it
                        sounds to the home-owning 65% that it might be something they should
                        support; and it suggests a lower overall level of tax than the status
                        quo (which would be true under an LVT regime for the same revenue
                        raised).

                        The neo-classicists have twisted enough economic language. Playing them
                        at their own game may be the best way forward!

                        Lo-Tax: lowering taxes by taxing locations.

                        Andrew Duffield

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: John burns-john@...>
                        To: LandCafe LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:55
                        Subject: [LandCafe] Fred Harrison does not say "Land Value Tax"

                        Fred Harrison speaking. He said he wasted 40 years of his life
                        promoting LVT. He said Land Value Tax is a forbidden word to him. He
                        approaches the matter from a different angle.

                        https://soundcloud.com/martin-adams/fred-harrison-at-occupy-london/s-XDlVM

                      • roy_langston
                        ... Locations _are_ land. ... How astonishing... -- Roy Langston
                        Message 11 of 19 , Feb 7, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:

                          > We don’t produce, play, or live, on land. We produce, play, or live, on locations.

                          Locations _are_ land.

                          > I’ve been arguing this for many years.

                          How astonishing...

                          -- Roy Langston
                        • John
                          ... We have title on locations.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Feb 8, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:
                            >
                            > > We don’t produce, play, or live, on land. We produce, play, or live, on locations.
                            >
                            > Locations _are_ land.
                            >
                            > > I’ve been arguing this for many years.
                            >
                            > How astonishing...

                            We have "title" on locations.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.