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

Re: Fred Harrison does not say "Land Value Tax"

Expand Messages
  • John
    ... Nice one Andrew. I was aware of the term Lo-Tax but never knew it was nailed down by Alter.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.