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

Re: Subway

Expand Messages
  • mattbieker
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXxkNaRkp8 ;)
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXxkNaRkp8

      ;)

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > This is indeed good news re IU. Dave believes in exempting most residential land from Land Value Tax
      > >
      > > As I've explained before, exempting LAND is a catastrophic blunder that will guarantee LVT's failure. It is PEOPLE who have rights that landowning abrogates, not land, and it is therefore PEOPLE -- all people, equally -- that must have individual exemptions from LVT, not land. Exempting land will just make people slice and dice the land until it is all exempt.
      > >
      > > > (or at least houses up to three times the average price)
      > >
      > > Houses are not land. Exempting houses on the basis of value is also a catastrophic blunder because it conflates two morally and economically opposite quantities: land value and improvement value.
      > >
      > > > so we can look forward to massive reinforcement of the status quo
      > >
      > > And that's supposed to be good...?
      > >
      > > > at a time when people are becoming alarmed that Coalition policy in the UK is likely to start off another housing bubble.
      > >
      > > Landowners aren't alarmed. They're salivating like Pavlov's dogs. They demand something for nothing, and they don't care who or how many they have to kill to get it.
      > >
      > > -- Roy Langston
      > >
      >
      >
      > Right. All salient points.
      >
      > I'd just add that just as exempting land provides incentives to "slice and dice", exempting babies provides increased incentives to "bump and grind".
      >
      > W
      >
    • roy_langston
      ... Right. Part of the reason is undoubtedly the great expense of paying landowners for each child s rights to life and liberty. And of course, landowning
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 31, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:

        > Without protracting this digression any further, I'd add; evidence from developed countries with significant "incentives" for procreation, both in cash, tax benefits, subsidies to care, etc., etc., seems to point out that you have to be pretty generous to increase fecundity above mere replacement.

        Right. Part of the reason is undoubtedly the great expense of paying landowners for each child's rights to life and liberty. And of course, landowning and other privileges add greatly to the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, educating, etc. each child. The benefits package would have to amount to several hundred dollars a month in such countries before it could compensate for the removal of the child's rights.

        > Programmes that *do* give increased reproduction are in typical welfare-trap-type arrangements, where means-tested benefits for single-mothers without other income stands out.

        Yes, we know such programs are indefensible.

        > A universal tax-credit/dividend does not give any disincentive to work, and paid work is ever so much more profitable than taking care of kids, and there will most likely never be a payment that compensates for this. At least not in high-income countries. Just my two cents.

        Well, in fact, some people's paid work IS taking care of kids. Never is a long time, and personally I would not be surprised to see the Law of Rent push wages down to the point where working became financially almost pointless for the majority of people.

        IMO there are a lot of complexities and conflicting priorities associated with societal support for child rearing that make anything but a UIE or equivalent universal CD morally, economically, and politically problematic. An obvious one is that it is in society's interest that the best and brightest reproduce more, but also that they work more. The USA already has some alarming statistics on the differential child-bearing rates of women who hold graduate degrees vs high school dropouts.

        -- Roy Langston
      • David Reed
        @RL I fear you have missed the heavy irony in the e-mail quoted below. I regard the onwards and upwards progress of Dave Wetzel s personal mission to secure
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          @RL I fear you have missed the heavy irony in the e-mail quoted below.
          I regard  the onwards and upwards progress of Dave Wetzel's personal
          mission to secure in the UK a Land Value Tax which exempts nearly all residential land as a disaster and  betrayal of what everybody else in the UK land tax movement has been fighting for.
          Let's be clear DW is a charismatic leader but ,as he himself invokes the wholly inappropriate comparisons with generals in wartime (  in his copied-in Land Value Tax to Replace Business Rates ),one is reminded of Sassoon's First World War "General": "He's  a cheery old card grunted Harry and Jack/ as they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack/But he did for them both with his plan of attack." Lets hear it for the Poor Bloody Infantry in the LVT ranks!
           
          Dave Wetzel has an indisputable historic significance for his role in the Fares Fair system which he helped  set-up when Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, a wholly Georgist system which channelled land value gains by owner occupiers back to transport for London whose infrastructure created their enhanced property values. This system went to the the House of Lords which put a stop to it, prompting DW to call them "vandals in ermine" .However, his plans for non residential LVT would do as much structural damage to any future Fairs Fare by exempting nearly all householders from repaying land value gains to support it (especially those who might conceivably use the buses and Tube).Who's the vandal now?
           
          DW is devaluing his own reputation in this blind pursuit of a LVT policy best known for the brief adherence of Nick Boles a Tory Cabinet Minister  .(For non-residential LVT  is, indeed ,LVT for Working-Class Tories, protecting their something-for- nothing gains in the value of their houses, a straightforward electoral bribe ,offered by all the main political parties ,so undermining representative parliamentary democracy in the UK,(as if we don't have enough problems).
          You would have thought the Crash of 2008 would have made  leaders of opinion, such as Dave Wetzel, super-sensitive about house price bubbles ( which according to the useful Bubble.Bubble.com website ) have affected nearly every country on earth .Not a bit of it .Non residential LVT would not merely permit ,but actually encourage house prices to inflate to double or treble the current average;  followed by the inevitable crash and  programme of austerity, pressing down real wages in a country where people look to house prices inflation for financial support rather than the Unions which they once relied on.
           
           I would not wish to dwell on the  travails of the Labour Land Campaign which
          I support in the teeth of the disappointments offered by General Wetzel and his aides de camp. Suffice to say we have seen the General advocating LVT only for houses worth more than £500,000 (three times the then average)in the Left Economic Advisory Panel's Red Papers of 2009 ; the union- sponsored CLASS paper of Andy Hull entitled InLand Revenue carrying handsome acknowledgements of  the General's "help and support" in marshalling  this argument for LVT i.e. "It should be levied on all land except for" (wait for it!) "  that which lies under ordinary people's homes"; the Coalition for Economic Justice,( an LVT umbrella organisation which Labour Land Campaign proposed), preparing a Plan for the Implementation of LVT with, in Section 31, the dread words "Some might argue   that the introduction of any residential form of LVT should be delayed to alter stage, or not attempted at all" .
           
          The General certainly attacks on all fronts: problem is he does not have the support of his troops in the Labour Land Campaign who have never approved of any of this non-residential LVT malarkey and certainly not voted for it. In twenty, going on thirty, years I have never known a vote on anything even for the officers at the AGM .My recent proposal  for an online poll  of all members on non residential  LVT was ignored.
          So I agree with most of RL's criticisms below. To be fair, I would even support his equally egocentric and eccentric UIE before I supported the policies imposed on my organisation by its leader. As to my  support, imputed by the General, for another Development Land Tax: I have been Vice Chair of LLC; if he doesn't know or care  what his officers' opinions on strategy are ( I favour the JS Mill from here- on LVT as people on land café the other side of the Atlantic know) that is part of the problem.
           
           But we've shelled the ground for seven days in the rain and its full of shell holes you'll  drown in. So its blow the whistles and forward into oblivion!

          r To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          From: roy_langston@...
          Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:03:13 +0000
          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Subway

           
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

          > This is indeed good news re IU. Dave believes in exempting most residential land from Land Value Tax

          As I've explained before, exempting LAND is a catastrophic blunder that will guarantee LVT's failure. It is PEOPLE who have rights that landowning abrogates, not land, and it is therefore PEOPLE -- all people, equally -- that must have individual exemptions from LVT, not land. Exempting land will just make people slice and dice the land until it is all exempt.

          > (or at least houses up to three times the average price)

          Houses are not land. Exempting houses on the basis of value is also a catastrophic blunder because it conflates two morally and economically opposite quantities: land value and improvement value.

          > so we can look forward to massive reinforcement of the status quo

          And that's supposed to be good...?

          > at a time when people are becoming alarmed that Coalition policy in the UK is likely to start off another housing bubble.

          Landowners aren't alarmed. They're salivating like Pavlov's dogs. They demand something for nothing, and they don't care who or how many they have to kill to get it.

          -- Roy Langston


        • k_r_johansen
          ... Uh-oh, I think I hear DBC already cooking up a new batch of fury. ... I think there are both land, labour and social policy/traditions that work together
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
            >
            > Right. Part of the reason is undoubtedly the great expense of paying landowners for each child's rights to life and liberty. And of course, landowning and other privileges add greatly to the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, educating, etc. each child. The benefits package would have to amount to several hundred dollars a month in such countries before it could compensate for the removal of the child's rights.
            >
            >
            > Well, in fact, some people's paid work IS taking care of kids. Never is a long time, and personally I would not be surprised to see the Law of Rent push wages down to the point where working became financially almost pointless for the majority of people.
            >

            Uh-oh, I think I hear DBC already cooking up a new batch of fury.

            > IMO there are a lot of complexities and conflicting priorities associated with societal support for child rearing that make anything but a UIE or equivalent universal CD morally, economically, and politically problematic. An obvious one is that it is in society's interest that the best and brightest reproduce more, but also that they work more. The USA already has some alarming statistics on the differential child-bearing rates of women who hold graduate degrees vs high school dropouts.
            >

            I think there are both land, labour and social policy/traditions that work together here. Let's say that our starting point was a society where households were multi-generational, and where work was largely differentiated by gender. In this society, a female not bearing children was a lot of unused capacity. Nowadays we have two-earner families, and rents and what counts as "subsistence" in terms of expected consumption level is adjusted to that reality. One of those earners going out for a couple of years means a large income adjustment. For highly educated women, removing yourself from work means both an immediate fall, and probably a long-term permanent wage-cut as well, as you loose out on pay-rises. The fall is lower for low-wage workers, and probably slightly less important in the long term, and public support replace a larger portion of salary than those with high pay.
            So in the Nordics, which are vehemently feminist, we solve this by awarding very high maternity pay, on the public purse, and subsidising childcare. The problem with all of this ofcourse is that you also subsidise rents, as households will bid up rents as their expectations of future income rise, even if they plan children. Land wins again.

            Kj
          • walto
            ... Hatcheries!! You can be with Alphas, where the women with graduate degrees can work, fool around, have lots of offspring and never get...you know...large!
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
              >
              > it is in society's interest that the best and brightest reproduce more, but also that they work more. The USA already has some alarming statistics on the differential child-bearing rates of women who hold graduate degrees vs high school dropouts.
              >
              > -- Roy Langston
              >


              Hatcheries!! You can be with Alphas, where the women with graduate degrees can work, fool around, have lots of offspring and never get...you know...large!

              W
            • roy_langston
              ... Always a matter of precarious discernment where your messages are concerned... ... The real irony is, he could obtain virtually the same political
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                > @RL I fear you have missed the heavy irony in the e-mail quoted below.

                Always a matter of precarious discernment where your messages are concerned...

                > I regard the onwards and upwards progress of Dave Wetzel's personal
                > mission to secure in the UK a Land Value Tax which exempts nearly all residential land as a disaster and betrayal of what everybody else in the UK land tax movement has been fighting for.

                The real irony is, he could obtain virtually the same political advantages -- i.e., leaving homeowners relatively untroubled -- while obtaining a LOT more economic and social benefits, if he just accepted the necessity of UIE+RPE and campaigned on the truths they reflect, instead of guzzling the homeownerist Kool-Aid.

                > Let's be clear DW is a charismatic leader

                Steady on, there. I have seen Dave on youtube. Many virtues can accurately be ascribed to him, but charisma is unfortunately not one of them. Tony Blair is charismatic. Barack Obama is charismatic. But Dave Wetzel?? If only.

                > However, his plans for non residential LVT would do as much structural damage to any future Fairs Fare by exempting nearly all householders from repaying land value gains to support it (especially those who might conceivably use the buses and Tube).Who's the vandal now?

                Actually, as a transition measure, exempting nearly all resident homeowners from repaying land value gains to the community that creates them has a lot to recommend it, and not just politically. There is the stability of the banking and monetary systems to consider, also the necessity of restoring the individual right to liberty, and the benefit of extending a large enough individual exemption to remove rent payments to landowners from the government's expenditures on poverty relief. But it would have to be done by means of the UIE+RPE, not through a blanket exemption for residential land.

                > You would have thought the Crash of 2008 would have made leaders of opinion, such as Dave Wetzel, super-sensitive about house price bubbles ( which according to the useful Bubble.Bubble.com website ) have affected nearly every country on earth .Not a bit of it .Non residential LVT would not merely permit ,but actually encourage house prices to inflate to double or treble the current average; followed by the inevitable crash and programme of austerity, pressing down real wages in a country where people look to house prices inflation for financial support rather than the Unions which they once relied on.

                I agree that exempting land rather than people from LVT is always going to be disastrous in the long run (the RPE is a short-term, self-extinguishing measure), however tempting its short-run political siren song.

                > Suffice to say we have seen the General advocating LVT only for houses worth more than £500,000 (three times the then average)in the Left Economic Advisory Panel's Red Papers of 2009 ; the union- sponsored CLASS paper of Andy Hull entitled InLand Revenue carrying handsome acknowledgements of the General's "help and support" in marshalling this argument for LVT i.e. "It should be levied on all land except for" (wait for it!) " that which lies under ordinary people's homes";

                Yes, I've explained why such an approach can only be disastrous.

                > the Coalition for Economic Justice,( an LVT umbrella organisation which Labour Land Campaign proposed), preparing a Plan for the Implementation of LVT with, in Section 31, the dread words "Some might argue that the introduction of any residential form of LVT should be delayed to alter stage, or not attempted at all" .

                Well, that's true enough: the "some" who might "argue" that are just shills for landowner privilege.

                > As to my support, imputed by the General, for another Development Land Tax: I have been Vice Chair of LLC; if he doesn't know or care what his officers' opinions on strategy are ( I favour the JS Mill from here- on LVT as people on land café the other side of the Atlantic know) that is part of the problem.

                IMO the blanket residential exemption is actually a less bad idea than the Mills' sometime-real-soon-now tax. At least it would raise some revenue, and get people used to the idea that publicly created value is not for private pockets.

                -- Roy Langston
              • David Reed
                It might work just as well in the interests of society (which, it is assumed, has the right to determine who comes into the world with State policies) if the
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 3, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  It might work just  as well in the interests of society (which, it is assumed, has the right to determine who comes into the world with  State policies) if the worst and dimmest reproduced less. ( Irony alert) 
                   

                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  From: calhorn@...
                  Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:02:54 +0000
                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Incentives

                   


                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > it is in society's interest that the best and brightest reproduce more, but also that they work more. The USA already has some alarming statistics on the differential child-bearing rates of women who hold graduate degrees vs high school dropouts.
                  >
                  > -- Roy Langston
                  >

                  Hatcheries!! You can be with Alphas, where the women with graduate degrees can work, fool around, have lots of offspring and never get...you know...large!

                  W


                • Ed
                  . a complicated social and personal issue. The key issue seems to be whether women in a society have an opportunity to obtain status outside of the role of
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 3, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment

                    … a complicated social and personal issue.

                     

                    The key issue seems to be whether women in a society have an opportunity to obtain status outside of the role of mother. A secondary consideration historically is whether children were viewed as necessary caregivers for parents as they became elderly and not able to work.

                     

                    I recall that our colleague Heather Remoff wrote in one of her books that women in societies where there was a high rate of infant mortality became pregnant far more often than in societies where infant mortality is low. And, this has something biological to do with nutrition.

                     

                    Combine educational opportunities, access to birth control and EITHER individual prosperity or economic hardship and low birth rates tend to be the result. Women who have expended time and a good deal of effort and money to gain proficiency in some career will tend to postpone marriage and having children. Women who have the education but are experiencing difficult economic circumstances will tend not to have children because it does not make financial sense to do so.

                     

                    Also, what history clearly reveals is that every population of people includes individuals with enormous unrealized potential. If we somehow manage to end oppression and to end poverty, we will experience an explosion of creative energy.

                     

                    Ed Dodson

                     

                  • roy_langston
                    ... LVT+UIE is the best policy -- +RPE as a transition measure, if rapid implementation is desired and feasible. ... Yes, well, we already know they have no
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 4, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:

                      > Full LVT is the best policy.

                      LVT+UIE is the best policy -- +RPE as a transition measure, if rapid implementation is desired and feasible.

                      > But the UK's Labour Party have already announced that they will NOT
                      > introduce LVT if they form the next government in 2015.

                      Yes, well, we already know they have no ideas other than serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges, as proved by their active complicity in the evisceration of the British middle class for the profit of rich, greedy takers throughout the Blair-Brown era.

                      > They are following the Liberal Democrats in proposing a Mansion Tax on all homes worth more than £2m.

                      Which is guaranteed to fail, as already explained.

                      > They are also proposing that local authorities be given powers to levy a charge on residential land banks (i.e. land with planning permission for
                      > housing but kept idle and undeveloped for years). This will be easily
                      > avoided by developers and house builders acquiring land but not seeking
                      > planning permission for housing until ready to build in many years time. (A site opposite where I live has been empty for 25 years).

                      Right. They know very well their plan will shovel additional billions into the pockets of the parasitic landed aristocracy and gentry, and that is their only real intention.

                      > There have been 4 Labour Governments since WW2 and each one has proposed a development land tax.

                      I.e., not LVT but a tax on improvements to make sure the UK's housing stock remains an under-supplied, overpriced shambles.

                      > Dave Reed may be happy for the next Labour Government to adopt yet another disastrous Development Land Tax

                      He appears to deny it, and instead favors the little-better "sometime real soon now" Mill tax.

                      > but I'm looking for a second-best policy.

                      Why settle for second best, when the best (see above) is superior in every way?

                      > I'd welcome opinions but am now going to be abroad for a week and unlikely to be able to get online to respond.

                      IMO those who think LVT+UIE+RPE is not politically salable just haven't thought it through, and have too little confidence in ordinary voters' ability to judge where their interests lie WHEN THEY ARE INFORMED OF THE RELEVANT FACTS.

                      > Except for a few limited successes at local levels around the world, where
                      > a small amount of land rent has been collected (with beneficial results)

                      Japan's LVT-based economic "miracles" in the Meiji and post-war Showa eras were not local or small.

                      > and despite the correctness of our arguments, those of us advocating an
                      > Annual Land Value Tax (LVT) to replace taxes on production have totally
                      > failed to convince the mass of people, academics and political leaders
                      > around the world of the benefits (including social justice, sound
                      > economics, addressing climate change,

                      Careful. We must not hitch our wagon to that fading star.

                      > the housing problem and the
                      > elimination of poverty) that arise from the collection of the economic rent
                      > of land and other natural resources and applied to fund public services.

                      Probably because like Henry George and most other LVT advocates, you have not understood the absolute, crucial necessity of the UIE, and the RPE as a transition measure.

                      > It is not the purpose of this paper to postulate on the causes of our
                      > failure but here in the UK we have had to overcome the power of the
                      > landowners’ lobby, the distortion of the teaching of economics and a
                      > hostile and ill-informed “conservative” press and media. We have also seen
                      > social changes whereby almost 70% of households are now freeholders of
                      > their own homes

                      The actual rate of homeownership is 68%, and that includes strata and leasehold ownership as well as mortgaged "freehold" ownership. Do not be deceived by the blandishments of the landed who pretend that owning improvements implies an identity of interests with those who own the land under them.

                      > and many others either aspire to purchase freeholds or to inherit
                      > over-inflated priced homes from their relatives.

                      First, evil forces its victims to participate in it in self-defense. Then it makes them dependent on it. Finally, it recruits them as its most passionate defenders.

                      Ordinary homeowners must be informed of the fact that they have been, and are being, robbed, cheated, and forcibly deprived of their rights without just compensation, and then tricked into believing they profit by that crime if they pay even more to buy back some of what has been stolen from them. Have we informed them of that fact? No? Then there is no need to postulate on the causes of our failure, because we already know the cause: not telling the truth.

                      > How can we neutralise the negative forces against us and persuade The British Labour Party
                      > to adopt an Annual Land Value Tax and then get the British electorate to vote for it?

                      LVT+UIE+RPE. And monetary reform.

                      > The Lib/Dems, and now Labour, advocate the Mansion Tax which although not
                      > ideal will, in practice, mostly fall upon the economic rent of residential
                      > properties worth over £2m. To be more practical the valuation for Mansion
                      > Tax should be on land value only and the starting figure should be no more
                      > than say £500k â€" leaving most residences (£500k plus building value) outside the scope of the Mansion Tax.

                      Exempt people, not property. That is absolutely crucial.

                      > The unusual financial difficulties that an incoming Government will face in
                      > 2015 and the current public outcry on tax avoidance also creates an opening
                      > for more creative thinking re taxation e.g. The Tax Justice Network, who
                      > have campaigned for many years for Government to close tax avoidance
                      > loopholes for business and especially multinationals also advocates LVT and
                      > there is a growing interest in new alternatives such as The Tobin Tax. The
                      > Labour front bench has a credibility problem as they intend to fund more
                      > public infrastructure, to reduce VAT and not to increase income tax or
                      > other taxes. At the present time Labour is also pledged to continue with
                      > unpopular cuts to repay the deficit.

                      While LVT+UIE enables massive cuts to the government spending on "poverty relief" and pensions that just goes into landowners' pockets. Why not start cutting the least justifiable spending?

                      > Given these contradictory pressures, I believe this opens up to us a unique
                      > opportunity to propose the principles of LVT to the Labour Movement and
                      > especially the Labour party’s front bench team.

                      Agreed. So, why abandon the principles of LVT for an inferior notion that is guaranteed to fail?

                      > We first need to realistically assess the likelihood of persuading the
                      > Labour Party to advocate full LVT in the next two years.

                      Have you tried telling them the truth? I.e., that the policies they currently advocate are 100% guaranteed to fail, while LVT+UIE+RPE plus monetary reform is guaranteed not only to succeed at the polls, but to make Britain Europe's leading economic power and the world's richest country within a single generation?

                      > 1. Householders (including tenants) worried about having to pay an
                      > ADDITIONAL tax because they don't see LVT replacing existing taxes as
                      > being credible as they don't trust politicians to reduce any taxes.

                      Answer: "We will reduce total taxes as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run in the next election."

                      The REASON politicians can't reduce taxes under the current system is that all the spending goes to landowners. Once you break free of that compulsory subsidy, reducing taxes becomes possible.

                      > 2. Economists and others claim you can't value land

                      That is a fatuous, cretinous lie disproved by every competent real estate appraiser every working day of his life.

                      Have you tried informing those who make that claim of that fact?

                      > and a single tax can’t work.

                      We don't propose a single tax. That's just physiocratic-Georgist moonshine we have long since outgrown. What we propose is the elimination of arbitrary, unjust, destructive and evil taxes, and their replacement with a voluntary, just, and beneficial system of repaying the public treasury for taking publicly created value.

                      > 3. Homeowners worry about the loss of freehold value

                      Freehold value is an illusion for all who own only their own residences, because they can't liquidate it: they have to live somewhere. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, try selling it and living like a millionaire on the proceeds. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, how much money do you have left at the end of the month after paying your mortgage, your income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc., etc.? Do you really think that paying 10K/yr in taxes and getting back 5K/yr in land rent so that others can pay little or no taxes and pocket 1M/yr in land rent is a good deal for you??

                      > (especially those approaching retirement with no or a little pension and scarce savings).

                      The UIE guarantees they won't need any savings, nor much of a pension, and does so at landlords' expense, not taxpayers' expense.

                      > 4. People with elderly relatives hoping to inherit their freehold property don't want home values to fall.

                      Greedy scum. Forget 'em.

                      > 5. New mortgagees are worried that they will have to continue to pay high repayments on their loans and fork out for LVT as well.

                      UIE+RPE removes that threat.

                      > 6. If council tax (CT) is abolished and replaced by LVT then freeholders
                      > will save on their CT but pay their existing mortgage plus LVT

                      Minus UIE+RPE, remember. While the past errors of the physiocrats and Georgists may be understandable, nowadays no one could be morally, economically, or politically naive enough to propose LVT without UIE+RPE.

                      > but their
                      > neighbour next door will save on their CT pay their current rent but their landlord (the landowner) will pick up the LVT bill.

                      That sounds right. Why would anyone but a greedy, evil parasite or a lickspittle of greedy, evil parasites want to keep honest working people poor in order to make rich, greedy takers even richer?

                      > 7. The poor widow, (income poor-asset rich problem) is always being thrown up as an objection to LVT.

                      The UIE ensures that she suffers no real hardship, and there are many other happy alternatives available to her to use her location more productively, such as taking in lodgers, renting out garden or parking space, renting out daytime space to a daycare, etc. The local Office of Poor Widow Assistance can help her identify the best solution. In extremis, compassionate deferments are available.

                      The point is, the poor widow's incentive to seek accommodation better suited to her needs and means is a BENEFIT of LVT, enabling the free market's movement of resources into the most productive hands. Never tolerate the despicable fabrications of people who claim to speak for the poor widow. ASK THE WIDOW HERSELF if she would prefer that her children and grandchildren live their whole lives in poverty and desperation, enslaved by landowners and mortgage lenders, so that she need not suffer the inconvenience of moving to more suitable accommodation (or have one of the grandchildren move in with her, along with their UIE), or if she would rather live in a more suitable place, so that her children and grandchildren could enjoy their human rights to liberty, and live fulfilling lives in a free, just, and prosperous society. And don't let her or anyone else get away with pretending there is any other alternative.

                      > In the Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value tax,

                      Which would be microscopic compared to the complexity and cost of administering any other tax of comparable revenue capacity...

                      > and more importantly, the likelihood of a significant number of losers,

                      Who very much deserve to lose, but give millions to the Tories...

                      > with many council tax payers facing higher tax bills and asset rich cash poor groups
                      > (e.g. pensioners) being particularly hard hit, means that such a proposal is not tenable.

                      "Asset rich but cash poor" just means, "unproductively hoarding valuable resources." The facts of economics and history are going to rub that evil, lying sack of $#!+'s nose in what's "tenable."

                      > The Government therefore has no intention of introducing a land value tax at this time.”***

                      Or ever.

                      > Therefore, I believe we need to recommend an alternative strategy to full
                      > LVT if we are to see a new Labour government avoid yet another form of development land tax.

                      And I've provided it: LVT+UIE+RPE. Just tell the truth, and expose the lies. NEVER let despicable, lying scum get away with rationalizing privilege, justifying injustice and excusing evil.

                      > Whenever I advocate LVT to Labour politicians invariably the questions of
                      > “the poor widow”, “how will this affect my voters?” “opposition of the
                      > popular press” and “how do we successfully persuade householders to vote
                      > for a tax on their own homes?” or put more glibly â€" “How do we persuade
                      > turkeys to vote for Xmas?” arise.

                      Have you asked ME? I can show you how. I can even show you how to establish a complete, accurately valued cadastre in three months, from a standing start.

                      > We do have adequate policy answers: there are very few poor people in valuable properties,

                      More to the point, there are NO poor people WHATEVER, anywhere in the world, or at any time in human history, who OWN valuable properties. We need to get the cretinous and dishonest "income, not wealth, is the measure of wealth," garbage out of people's heads.

                      > widows can move, take in lodgers or defer payment,

                      Right. It would be a trivial matter to establish a government office of advisors devoted to helping the poor widows either use their locations more productively or find accommodation better suited to their needs and means.

                      > taxes on their incomes and trade (VAT) will be reduced.

                      And they will certainly have their UIEs and RPEs, without which no one in the 21st century with any brains would propose LVT.

                      > Householders can be given a homestead allowance to reduce the impact of LVT,

                      No, of course they can't. We have to get that kind of ridiculous, self-defeating garbage out of people's heads once and for all. The only permissible kind of exemption for properties is the RPE, which is a limited and self-extinguishing transition measure. If we ever want to succeed, homestead allowances, broad "occupied residential land" exemptions, etc. have to be taken permanently and unconditionally off the table, because they are only ways to guarantee that LVT fails.

                      > and other taxes on incomes and trade could be cut etc. etc.

                      No, they WILL be ABOLISHED. That is absolutely crucial. We must be able to show people, including homeowners, comparisons proving they will be far better off with LVT, and then make good on them.

                      > However, none of these appear to be satisfactory to most voters or Labour politicians

                      Have you tried identifying the relevant facts clearly, as I do?

                      > and we have no adequate answer to hostility in the popular press.

                      Sure we do: identify their lies as such loudly, publicly, and often.

                      > In recent discussions on the Mansion Tax, the press have described
                      > deferral (or rollover) of the Mansion Tax as yet another inheritance tax

                      "That is of course a stupid lie. What stupid lie will the press come up with next? Are estates' payments of the deceased's income tax arrears also 'yet another inheritance tax'? Whose interests is the press serving by constantly telling such stupid lies?"

                      > and in Scotland, Green Party proposals for LVT were described in newspapers
                      > as “a tax on your garden”.

                      "This newspaper has apparently decided it is better for HM government to steal the honest wages of the working poor by taxing them away than to recover the publicly created value of the Duke of Westminster's vast 'back gardens' for the purposes and benefit of the public that created it."

                      > In addition, few voters believe politicians
                      > would use LVT to replace other taxes but it would just become an additional
                      > burden for voters to pay.

                      That's easy: "We will reduce total taxation as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election. We will reduce the total tax burden on at least 90% of resident homeowners who own only their own homes by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election."

                      > Consequently, if we are to be successful in introducing LVT in the next
                      > seven years, I think it is incumbent upon us to rethink our message and
                      > offer the Labour front bench a credible form of LVT (credible in as much it
                      > is acceptable to them but works in harmony and not in opposition to our
                      > understanding of the theory of economic rent).

                      It is a mistake to imagine that the Labour front bench got there by being interested in liberty, justice or prosperity. They are servants of privilege, and have no interest in, or understanding of, anything but serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges.

                      > The abolition of slavery did
                      > not commence with the demand to free all slaves immediately but was
                      > eventually successful following over 100 years of arguments to first outlaw
                      > the slave trade and then to abolish slavery itself. Equally, the transfer
                      > of countries from rule by the British Empire to self-determination did not
                      > happen in one fell swoop but took over two hundred years from 1783 with the
                      > loss of the United States.

                      Then maybe it's time to start identifying the facts, as I do.

                      > Similarly, perhaps we should be seeking an immediate partial land reform that works in harmony with our ultimate concept of LVT

                      What's wrong with eliminating taxation of improvements and taxing only land value on a revenue-neutral basis? That way, we can establish our abolition-not-addition bona fides.

                      > rather continuing in the land value tax promotion of the past 130 years,
                      > arguing only for pure LVT and achieving almost nothing.

                      I've explained how to fix that.

                      > This dichotomy is demonstrated by the
                      > debate on Mansion Tax where the purists on LVT argue we should keep the
                      > faith and reject a tax on buildings even though the Mansion Tax will in
                      > practice fall mainly on the rental value of land of these valuable homes.

                      BUT IT GETS THE INCENTIVES WRONG, which is why it will and must FAIL.

                      > Therefore, I am proposing that at this unique time in UK history we suggest
                      > to Labour politicians that they promise at the next general election to
                      > introduce a partial LVT to replace the Business Rates (perhaps called a
                      > Location Benefit Charge (LBC)?).

                      How about "Land Subsidy Repayment"? That's how to frame the debate. Don't talk about a tax. Talk about requiring rich, greedy parasites to repay the subsidy they are being given in return for nothing.

                      > This LBC would consist of an annual Land
                      > Value Tax (that is a percentage tax on the annual land rental value, based
                      > on the optimum permitted use of each site) introduced on *ALL* land except
                      > occupied family homes.

                      Requiring occupancy is at least a baby step in the right direction: exempting people, not property. The necessity of verifying occupancy implies maintenance and use of records of residential address, so why not just do the right thing from the outset, and give every resident citizen an equal exemption? It would be a trivial matter to set the exemption amount and tax rate at such levels that typical homeowners would pay little or no LSR, which is the putative intention of exempting occupied residences. But the UIE would have enormous additional benefits, such as reducing housing prices and enabling government to slash the subsidy to landowners that it pays in the form of income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.

                      > The exemption would apply to all occupied homes
                      > irrespective of tenure whether it be freehold, tenant, shared ownership,
                      > leasehold or co-operative ownership.

                      Again, that is grossly inequitable. The proposed occupied residential land exemption subsidizes those who own the most expensive residential land occupied at the highest per capita land value, at the expense of tenants and those who own the cheapest land and occupy it at the lowest per capita land value.

                      > Of course, parks, playing fields, and sites below the margin would be zero value for LVT purposes.

                      What's the tax status of church properties in the UK? Are they tax-free, or taxed at negligible value?

                      > Poor hill farmers and small market gardeners would
                      > not pay LVT on their homes and their farm fields are usually situated on
                      > very low value land and therefore the savings they will make on the other
                      > tax reductions will probably far exceed their low LVT payments.

                      Especially as the UIE provides them with free, secure access to enough of that low-value land to make a living.

                      > The only sites excluded from LVT would be sites with homes that are
                      > currently occupied and paying council tax. (“Occupation” would allow for
                      > homes where the family are away on holiday or reasonable periods of work).

                      I.e., it would be based on residence of record. So if you are going to use that data anyway, why not use it properly, to administer a UIE?

                      > Council tax would continue to be paid on these homes

                      Council Tax is an abomination. WHY NOT JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?

                      > but we need to remember that both Labour and the Lib/Dems are already pledged to introduce
                      > the new mansion tax on all homes worth over £2m. As stated above the
                      > valuation for Mansion Tax on homes (land and building) worth over £2m
                      > should only fall on the land value, for why would we want to penalise
                      > owners who wish to improve their homes?

                      Why would we want to subsidize owners who occupy the most land value per resident, as the "occupied residential land exemption" does?

                      > Residential use represents about 2% of land area in this country, so
                      > partial LVT would still apply to circa 98% of land.

                      But well under half by value...

                      > This approach would mean that LVT as we know it would fall on all second
                      > homes, all empty homes, all under-occupied flats owned by overseas
                      > investors, all valuable town centre commercial and retail sites,
                      > out-of-town retail supermarkets and stores (together with their car parks),
                      > industrial estates, residential/commercial sites with planning permissions
                      > but yet to be built on and all land banks, empty and underused buildings
                      > and all brownfield sites.
                      >
                      > All land under new homes in the future, built on
                      > land already paying LVT, would continue to pay LVT and not council tax.

                      Ah. I was wondering if the necessity of that provision was appreciated.

                      Of course, that means there would be a scramble to "occupy" all the unoccupied residential sites while the LVT enabling legislation wound its way through Parliament....

                      > In fact LVT would apply to all the UK’s land area, except occupied homes
                      > paying council tax at the time LVT was introduced.

                      Problem: that means that without the RPE, recent buyers of the taxed land (and their mortgage lenders) will be hit hard as the subsidy value they were counting on disappears.

                      > Admittedly, we would “lose” a portion of LVT income, as much of the 98%
                      > would be low value land operating at or below the margin and most
                      > residential sites have a relatively high value.

                      You would lose about half the revenue obtainable under LVT+UIE+RPE, with the added disadvantage of having to continue shoveling billions in tax revenue into landowners' pockets through income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.

                      > This approach might even encourage speculative investment away form commercial land but onto
                      > people’s homes, but this could be mitigated by revaluing Council Tax values
                      > and adding more higher bands to Council Tax. But I suggest, the approach I
                      > am suggesting here could be the most political feasible one at this time.

                      Political feasibility is largely a function of what people have been told, or permitted to know. They have not been told or permitted to know the central facts identified in this message. Start telling them the truth, and liberty, justice and prosperity will become a lot more politically feasible.

                      > Benefits of Business Rates applied to land values (Location Benefit Charge)
                      > would be that we will have proven the mechanism for introducing LVT works.
                      > i.e. the land can be valued, landowners can be identified, LVT can be
                      > introduced and administered at far lower costs than existing taxes
                      > (remember David Gauke’s letter above where he stated â€" *“In the
                      > Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value
                      > tax…………….. means that such a proposal is not tenable”*, we will have proven
                      > politicians can be trusted to reduce or even abolish taxes on production,
                      > that with even a partial LVT unemployment falls and wages do rise naturally
                      > with businesses prospering and seeking more workers.

                      While real wages (especially after-tax) should rise, don't count on nominal wages rising unless you reform the monetary system to separate money creation from land speculation. IMO monetary reform should probably come before LVT. Otherwise, the deflationary effect of declining costs and lack of debt-money creation could kill the economy despite LVT.

                      > Remember the last 2010 general election. To help fund the new CrossRail
                      > deep broad-gauge underground railway line across Greater London, Labour was
                      > proposing to introduce a Business Rate Supplement on all London businesses
                      > with a rateable value of over £50,000. If this had applied to homes there
                      > would have been uproar but as it did not - there was no controversy
                      > whatsoever, and these contributions are being paid today to fund CrossRail.

                      It's true that homeownerism makes it easier to tax anything but housing; however, as explained above, the UIE+RPE removes ordinary homeowners' excuses for opposing LVT.

                      > If we propose a non-residential LVT that excludes people’s homes we will
                      > avoid all the most obvious attacks and especially the rich landowners
                      > hiding behind the skirts of the “poor widow”. There could be no garden tax
                      > scare stories and Labour could highlight the unfair land distribution
                      > represented by aristocrats, such as The Duke of Westminster, who owns and
                      > controls much of Mayfair and Belgravia.

                      If that's the aim, then why not just restrict the exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing? It's easy to prove LVT can't be passed on to tenants, and the elimination of Council Tax on improvements will reduce rental prices. Ordinary homeowners know their back gardens aren't worth £1M, and the "poor widows" who have land worth more than £1M under their houses tend to have "Countess," "Duchess," or the like in front of their names. Of course, under this "resident-owned" exemption system, conversion of housing to owner-occupation would not take taxed land off the LVT rolls, just as under the proposed "occupied residential land" exemption.

                      > When fighting a war a good general picks the most favourable ground on
                      > which to fight â€" thus leaving his enemy at a disadvantage. Neither does he
                      > expect to win the battle with a full frontal assault on all dispositions of
                      > the enemy. A Napoleon or a Wellington uses strategy and tactics to often
                      > marshall his strongest forces to pick his enemy’s weakest spot on which to
                      > mobilise maximum force and by breaking through, dishearten and depress the
                      > enemy’s soldiers’ fighting spirit to win the battle â€" and perhaps
                      > ultimately the war.

                      Interesting analogy. Exactly what do you consider the enemy's weakest point? The burden on economic activity posed by current taxes? The fact that land value is the measure of the net subsidy to the landowner, which is paid for by those taxes? Poverty? Inequality? Unemployment? Economic stagnation? Unaffordable housing? Land bubbles and crashes? Budget deficits? The blatant, exorbitant parasitism of the landed aristocracy? The fact that Britons have no right to access opportunity or even to exist in their native country? I would suggest that by declining to tax the value of vast landed estates just because they happen to have tenants living on them, you have already relinquished the high ground, and passed up the opportunity to attack one of the enemy's weakest points.

                      > We have a battle on our hands, the 2015 general election may only be our
                      > latest skirmish in a long war that has waged since the 19th Century,

                      Since the fourth millennium BCE, at least.

                      > but I believe, with the Location Benefit Charge we can spike the enemies guns,
                      > win a limited success and go on to achieve 100% LVT in future elections.

                      Please consider the superior advantages of the two alternative options I have described here: broad LVT+UIE+RPE; and restriction of the residential exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing +UIE+RPE.

                      > Finally, consider our position in 2020 â€" seven years from now and five years after the next election. > Where do you want us to be?

                      In a position to DARE other parties to run against the greatest public policy success in recorded history.

                      > Ideally, we would want full LVT on all sites. But if full LVT is not
                      > possible, (and past experience of Labour Governments, even with massive
                      > majorities in 1945 and 1997 suggests it’s not) which would we prefer â€" no
                      > attempt to collect any land rent (and possibly yet another development land
                      > tax) - or LVT being collected on circa 98% of the UK’s land area?

                      IMO you need to determine exactly where the resistance lies, and neutralize it. Whenever anyone in the Labour Party expresses opposition to LVT, do not hesitate to ask them, incredulously, "Why do you demand that we force working people to subsidize the rich, greedy parasites who finance the Tories? Are you a Tory mole or something?"

                      -- Roy Langston
                    • walto
                      Bravo. Nicely done. W
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 5, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bravo. Nicely done.

                        W

                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Full LVT is the best policy.
                        >
                        > LVT+UIE is the best policy -- +RPE as a transition measure, if rapid implementation is desired and feasible.
                        >
                        > > But the UK's Labour Party have already announced that they will NOT
                        > > introduce LVT if they form the next government in 2015.
                        >
                        > Yes, well, we already know they have no ideas other than serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges, as proved by their active complicity in the evisceration of the British middle class for the profit of rich, greedy takers throughout the Blair-Brown era.
                        >
                        > > They are following the Liberal Democrats in proposing a Mansion Tax on all homes worth more than £2m.
                        >
                        > Which is guaranteed to fail, as already explained.
                        >
                        > > They are also proposing that local authorities be given powers to levy a charge on residential land banks (i.e. land with planning permission for
                        > > housing but kept idle and undeveloped for years). This will be easily
                        > > avoided by developers and house builders acquiring land but not seeking
                        > > planning permission for housing until ready to build in many years time. (A site opposite where I live has been empty for 25 years).
                        >
                        > Right. They know very well their plan will shovel additional billions into the pockets of the parasitic landed aristocracy and gentry, and that is their only real intention.
                        >
                        > > There have been 4 Labour Governments since WW2 and each one has proposed a development land tax.
                        >
                        > I.e., not LVT but a tax on improvements to make sure the UK's housing stock remains an under-supplied, overpriced shambles.
                        >
                        > > Dave Reed may be happy for the next Labour Government to adopt yet another disastrous Development Land Tax
                        >
                        > He appears to deny it, and instead favors the little-better "sometime real soon now" Mill tax.
                        >
                        > > but I'm looking for a second-best policy.
                        >
                        > Why settle for second best, when the best (see above) is superior in every way?
                        >
                        > > I'd welcome opinions but am now going to be abroad for a week and unlikely to be able to get online to respond.
                        >
                        > IMO those who think LVT+UIE+RPE is not politically salable just haven't thought it through, and have too little confidence in ordinary voters' ability to judge where their interests lie WHEN THEY ARE INFORMED OF THE RELEVANT FACTS.
                        >
                        > > Except for a few limited successes at local levels around the world, where
                        > > a small amount of land rent has been collected (with beneficial results)
                        >
                        > Japan's LVT-based economic "miracles" in the Meiji and post-war Showa eras were not local or small.
                        >
                        > > and despite the correctness of our arguments, those of us advocating an
                        > > Annual Land Value Tax (LVT) to replace taxes on production have totally
                        > > failed to convince the mass of people, academics and political leaders
                        > > around the world of the benefits (including social justice, sound
                        > > economics, addressing climate change,
                        >
                        > Careful. We must not hitch our wagon to that fading star.
                        >
                        > > the housing problem and the
                        > > elimination of poverty) that arise from the collection of the economic rent
                        > > of land and other natural resources and applied to fund public services.
                        >
                        > Probably because like Henry George and most other LVT advocates, you have not understood the absolute, crucial necessity of the UIE, and the RPE as a transition measure.
                        >
                        > > It is not the purpose of this paper to postulate on the causes of our
                        > > failure but here in the UK we have had to overcome the power of the
                        > > landowners’ lobby, the distortion of the teaching of economics and a
                        > > hostile and ill-informed “conservative” press and media. We have also seen
                        > > social changes whereby almost 70% of households are now freeholders of
                        > > their own homes
                        >
                        > The actual rate of homeownership is 68%, and that includes strata and leasehold ownership as well as mortgaged "freehold" ownership. Do not be deceived by the blandishments of the landed who pretend that owning improvements implies an identity of interests with those who own the land under them.
                        >
                        > > and many others either aspire to purchase freeholds or to inherit
                        > > over-inflated priced homes from their relatives.
                        >
                        > First, evil forces its victims to participate in it in self-defense. Then it makes them dependent on it. Finally, it recruits them as its most passionate defenders.
                        >
                        > Ordinary homeowners must be informed of the fact that they have been, and are being, robbed, cheated, and forcibly deprived of their rights without just compensation, and then tricked into believing they profit by that crime if they pay even more to buy back some of what has been stolen from them. Have we informed them of that fact? No? Then there is no need to postulate on the causes of our failure, because we already know the cause: not telling the truth.
                        >
                        > > How can we neutralise the negative forces against us and persuade The British Labour Party
                        > > to adopt an Annual Land Value Tax and then get the British electorate to vote for it?
                        >
                        > LVT+UIE+RPE. And monetary reform.
                        >
                        > > The Lib/Dems, and now Labour, advocate the Mansion Tax which although not
                        > > ideal will, in practice, mostly fall upon the economic rent of residential
                        > > properties worth over £2m. To be more practical the valuation for Mansion
                        > > Tax should be on land value only and the starting figure should be no more
                        > > than say £500k â€" leaving most residences (£500k plus building value) outside the scope of the Mansion Tax.
                        >
                        > Exempt people, not property. That is absolutely crucial.
                        >
                        > > The unusual financial difficulties that an incoming Government will face in
                        > > 2015 and the current public outcry on tax avoidance also creates an opening
                        > > for more creative thinking re taxation e.g. The Tax Justice Network, who
                        > > have campaigned for many years for Government to close tax avoidance
                        > > loopholes for business and especially multinationals also advocates LVT and
                        > > there is a growing interest in new alternatives such as The Tobin Tax. The
                        > > Labour front bench has a credibility problem as they intend to fund more
                        > > public infrastructure, to reduce VAT and not to increase income tax or
                        > > other taxes. At the present time Labour is also pledged to continue with
                        > > unpopular cuts to repay the deficit.
                        >
                        > While LVT+UIE enables massive cuts to the government spending on "poverty relief" and pensions that just goes into landowners' pockets. Why not start cutting the least justifiable spending?
                        >
                        > > Given these contradictory pressures, I believe this opens up to us a unique
                        > > opportunity to propose the principles of LVT to the Labour Movement and
                        > > especially the Labour party’s front bench team.
                        >
                        > Agreed. So, why abandon the principles of LVT for an inferior notion that is guaranteed to fail?
                        >
                        > > We first need to realistically assess the likelihood of persuading the
                        > > Labour Party to advocate full LVT in the next two years.
                        >
                        > Have you tried telling them the truth? I.e., that the policies they currently advocate are 100% guaranteed to fail, while LVT+UIE+RPE plus monetary reform is guaranteed not only to succeed at the polls, but to make Britain Europe's leading economic power and the world's richest country within a single generation?
                        >
                        > > 1. Householders (including tenants) worried about having to pay an
                        > > ADDITIONAL tax because they don't see LVT replacing existing taxes as
                        > > being credible as they don't trust politicians to reduce any taxes.
                        >
                        > Answer: "We will reduce total taxes as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run in the next election."
                        >
                        > The REASON politicians can't reduce taxes under the current system is that all the spending goes to landowners. Once you break free of that compulsory subsidy, reducing taxes becomes possible.
                        >
                        > > 2. Economists and others claim you can't value land
                        >
                        > That is a fatuous, cretinous lie disproved by every competent real estate appraiser every working day of his life.
                        >
                        > Have you tried informing those who make that claim of that fact?
                        >
                        > > and a single tax can’t work.
                        >
                        > We don't propose a single tax. That's just physiocratic-Georgist moonshine we have long since outgrown. What we propose is the elimination of arbitrary, unjust, destructive and evil taxes, and their replacement with a voluntary, just, and beneficial system of repaying the public treasury for taking publicly created value.
                        >
                        > > 3. Homeowners worry about the loss of freehold value
                        >
                        > Freehold value is an illusion for all who own only their own residences, because they can't liquidate it: they have to live somewhere. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, try selling it and living like a millionaire on the proceeds. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, how much money do you have left at the end of the month after paying your mortgage, your income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc., etc.? Do you really think that paying 10K/yr in taxes and getting back 5K/yr in land rent so that others can pay little or no taxes and pocket 1M/yr in land rent is a good deal for you??
                        >
                        > > (especially those approaching retirement with no or a little pension and scarce savings).
                        >
                        > The UIE guarantees they won't need any savings, nor much of a pension, and does so at landlords' expense, not taxpayers' expense.
                        >
                        > > 4. People with elderly relatives hoping to inherit their freehold property don't want home values to fall.
                        >
                        > Greedy scum. Forget 'em.
                        >
                        > > 5. New mortgagees are worried that they will have to continue to pay high repayments on their loans and fork out for LVT as well.
                        >
                        > UIE+RPE removes that threat.
                        >
                        > > 6. If council tax (CT) is abolished and replaced by LVT then freeholders
                        > > will save on their CT but pay their existing mortgage plus LVT
                        >
                        > Minus UIE+RPE, remember. While the past errors of the physiocrats and Georgists may be understandable, nowadays no one could be morally, economically, or politically naive enough to propose LVT without UIE+RPE.
                        >
                        > > but their
                        > > neighbour next door will save on their CT pay their current rent but their landlord (the landowner) will pick up the LVT bill.
                        >
                        > That sounds right. Why would anyone but a greedy, evil parasite or a lickspittle of greedy, evil parasites want to keep honest working people poor in order to make rich, greedy takers even richer?
                        >
                        > > 7. The poor widow, (income poor-asset rich problem) is always being thrown up as an objection to LVT.
                        >
                        > The UIE ensures that she suffers no real hardship, and there are many other happy alternatives available to her to use her location more productively, such as taking in lodgers, renting out garden or parking space, renting out daytime space to a daycare, etc. The local Office of Poor Widow Assistance can help her identify the best solution. In extremis, compassionate deferments are available.
                        >
                        > The point is, the poor widow's incentive to seek accommodation better suited to her needs and means is a BENEFIT of LVT, enabling the free market's movement of resources into the most productive hands. Never tolerate the despicable fabrications of people who claim to speak for the poor widow. ASK THE WIDOW HERSELF if she would prefer that her children and grandchildren live their whole lives in poverty and desperation, enslaved by landowners and mortgage lenders, so that she need not suffer the inconvenience of moving to more suitable accommodation (or have one of the grandchildren move in with her, along with their UIE), or if she would rather live in a more suitable place, so that her children and grandchildren could enjoy their human rights to liberty, and live fulfilling lives in a free, just, and prosperous society. And don't let her or anyone else get away with pretending there is any other alternative.
                        >
                        > > In the Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value tax,
                        >
                        > Which would be microscopic compared to the complexity and cost of administering any other tax of comparable revenue capacity...
                        >
                        > > and more importantly, the likelihood of a significant number of losers,
                        >
                        > Who very much deserve to lose, but give millions to the Tories...
                        >
                        > > with many council tax payers facing higher tax bills and asset rich cash poor groups
                        > > (e.g. pensioners) being particularly hard hit, means that such a proposal is not tenable.
                        >
                        > "Asset rich but cash poor" just means, "unproductively hoarding valuable resources." The facts of economics and history are going to rub that evil, lying sack of $#!+'s nose in what's "tenable."
                        >
                        > > The Government therefore has no intention of introducing a land value tax at this time.”***
                        >
                        > Or ever.
                        >
                        > > Therefore, I believe we need to recommend an alternative strategy to full
                        > > LVT if we are to see a new Labour government avoid yet another form of development land tax.
                        >
                        > And I've provided it: LVT+UIE+RPE. Just tell the truth, and expose the lies. NEVER let despicable, lying scum get away with rationalizing privilege, justifying injustice and excusing evil.
                        >
                        > > Whenever I advocate LVT to Labour politicians invariably the questions of
                        > > “the poor widow”, “how will this affect my voters?” “opposition of the
                        > > popular press” and “how do we successfully persuade householders to vote
                        > > for a tax on their own homes?” or put more glibly â€" “How do we persuade
                        > > turkeys to vote for Xmas?” arise.
                        >
                        > Have you asked ME? I can show you how. I can even show you how to establish a complete, accurately valued cadastre in three months, from a standing start.
                        >
                        > > We do have adequate policy answers: there are very few poor people in valuable properties,
                        >
                        > More to the point, there are NO poor people WHATEVER, anywhere in the world, or at any time in human history, who OWN valuable properties. We need to get the cretinous and dishonest "income, not wealth, is the measure of wealth," garbage out of people's heads.
                        >
                        > > widows can move, take in lodgers or defer payment,
                        >
                        > Right. It would be a trivial matter to establish a government office of advisors devoted to helping the poor widows either use their locations more productively or find accommodation better suited to their needs and means.
                        >
                        > > taxes on their incomes and trade (VAT) will be reduced.
                        >
                        > And they will certainly have their UIEs and RPEs, without which no one in the 21st century with any brains would propose LVT.
                        >
                        > > Householders can be given a homestead allowance to reduce the impact of LVT,
                        >
                        > No, of course they can't. We have to get that kind of ridiculous, self-defeating garbage out of people's heads once and for all. The only permissible kind of exemption for properties is the RPE, which is a limited and self-extinguishing transition measure. If we ever want to succeed, homestead allowances, broad "occupied residential land" exemptions, etc. have to be taken permanently and unconditionally off the table, because they are only ways to guarantee that LVT fails.
                        >
                        > > and other taxes on incomes and trade could be cut etc. etc.
                        >
                        > No, they WILL be ABOLISHED. That is absolutely crucial. We must be able to show people, including homeowners, comparisons proving they will be far better off with LVT, and then make good on them.
                        >
                        > > However, none of these appear to be satisfactory to most voters or Labour politicians
                        >
                        > Have you tried identifying the relevant facts clearly, as I do?
                        >
                        > > and we have no adequate answer to hostility in the popular press.
                        >
                        > Sure we do: identify their lies as such loudly, publicly, and often.
                        >
                        > > In recent discussions on the Mansion Tax, the press have described
                        > > deferral (or rollover) of the Mansion Tax as yet another inheritance tax
                        >
                        > "That is of course a stupid lie. What stupid lie will the press come up with next? Are estates' payments of the deceased's income tax arrears also 'yet another inheritance tax'? Whose interests is the press serving by constantly telling such stupid lies?"
                        >
                        > > and in Scotland, Green Party proposals for LVT were described in newspapers
                        > > as “a tax on your garden”.
                        >
                        > "This newspaper has apparently decided it is better for HM government to steal the honest wages of the working poor by taxing them away than to recover the publicly created value of the Duke of Westminster's vast 'back gardens' for the purposes and benefit of the public that created it."
                        >
                        > > In addition, few voters believe politicians
                        > > would use LVT to replace other taxes but it would just become an additional
                        > > burden for voters to pay.
                        >
                        > That's easy: "We will reduce total taxation as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election. We will reduce the total tax burden on at least 90% of resident homeowners who own only their own homes by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election."
                        >
                        > > Consequently, if we are to be successful in introducing LVT in the next
                        > > seven years, I think it is incumbent upon us to rethink our message and
                        > > offer the Labour front bench a credible form of LVT (credible in as much it
                        > > is acceptable to them but works in harmony and not in opposition to our
                        > > understanding of the theory of economic rent).
                        >
                        > It is a mistake to imagine that the Labour front bench got there by being interested in liberty, justice or prosperity. They are servants of privilege, and have no interest in, or understanding of, anything but serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges.
                        >
                        > > The abolition of slavery did
                        > > not commence with the demand to free all slaves immediately but was
                        > > eventually successful following over 100 years of arguments to first outlaw
                        > > the slave trade and then to abolish slavery itself. Equally, the transfer
                        > > of countries from rule by the British Empire to self-determination did not
                        > > happen in one fell swoop but took over two hundred years from 1783 with the
                        > > loss of the United States.
                        >
                        > Then maybe it's time to start identifying the facts, as I do.
                        >
                        > > Similarly, perhaps we should be seeking an immediate partial land reform that works in harmony with our ultimate concept of LVT
                        >
                        > What's wrong with eliminating taxation of improvements and taxing only land value on a revenue-neutral basis? That way, we can establish our abolition-not-addition bona fides.
                        >
                        > > rather continuing in the land value tax promotion of the past 130 years,
                        > > arguing only for pure LVT and achieving almost nothing.
                        >
                        > I've explained how to fix that.
                        >
                        > > This dichotomy is demonstrated by the
                        > > debate on Mansion Tax where the purists on LVT argue we should keep the
                        > > faith and reject a tax on buildings even though the Mansion Tax will in
                        > > practice fall mainly on the rental value of land of these valuable homes.
                        >
                        > BUT IT GETS THE INCENTIVES WRONG, which is why it will and must FAIL.
                        >
                        > > Therefore, I am proposing that at this unique time in UK history we suggest
                        > > to Labour politicians that they promise at the next general election to
                        > > introduce a partial LVT to replace the Business Rates (perhaps called a
                        > > Location Benefit Charge (LBC)?).
                        >
                        > How about "Land Subsidy Repayment"? That's how to frame the debate. Don't talk about a tax. Talk about requiring rich, greedy parasites to repay the subsidy they are being given in return for nothing.
                        >
                        > > This LBC would consist of an annual Land
                        > > Value Tax (that is a percentage tax on the annual land rental value, based
                        > > on the optimum permitted use of each site) introduced on *ALL* land except
                        > > occupied family homes.
                        >
                        > Requiring occupancy is at least a baby step in the right direction: exempting people, not property. The necessity of verifying occupancy implies maintenance and use of records of residential address, so why not just do the right thing from the outset, and give every resident citizen an equal exemption? It would be a trivial matter to set the exemption amount and tax rate at such levels that typical homeowners would pay little or no LSR, which is the putative intention of exempting occupied residences. But the UIE would have enormous additional benefits, such as reducing housing prices and enabling government to slash the subsidy to landowners that it pays in the form of income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.
                        >
                        > > The exemption would apply to all occupied homes
                        > > irrespective of tenure whether it be freehold, tenant, shared ownership,
                        > > leasehold or co-operative ownership.
                        >
                        > Again, that is grossly inequitable. The proposed occupied residential land exemption subsidizes those who own the most expensive residential land occupied at the highest per capita land value, at the expense of tenants and those who own the cheapest land and occupy it at the lowest per capita land value.
                        >
                        > > Of course, parks, playing fields, and sites below the margin would be zero value for LVT purposes.
                        >
                        > What's the tax status of church properties in the UK? Are they tax-free, or taxed at negligible value?
                        >
                        > > Poor hill farmers and small market gardeners would
                        > > not pay LVT on their homes and their farm fields are usually situated on
                        > > very low value land and therefore the savings they will make on the other
                        > > tax reductions will probably far exceed their low LVT payments.
                        >
                        > Especially as the UIE provides them with free, secure access to enough of that low-value land to make a living.
                        >
                        > > The only sites excluded from LVT would be sites with homes that are
                        > > currently occupied and paying council tax. (“Occupation” would allow for
                        > > homes where the family are away on holiday or reasonable periods of work).
                        >
                        > I.e., it would be based on residence of record. So if you are going to use that data anyway, why not use it properly, to administer a UIE?
                        >
                        > > Council tax would continue to be paid on these homes
                        >
                        > Council Tax is an abomination. WHY NOT JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?
                        >
                        > > but we need to remember that both Labour and the Lib/Dems are already pledged to introduce
                        > > the new mansion tax on all homes worth over £2m. As stated above the
                        > > valuation for Mansion Tax on homes (land and building) worth over £2m
                        > > should only fall on the land value, for why would we want to penalise
                        > > owners who wish to improve their homes?
                        >
                        > Why would we want to subsidize owners who occupy the most land value per resident, as the "occupied residential land exemption" does?
                        >
                        > > Residential use represents about 2% of land area in this country, so
                        > > partial LVT would still apply to circa 98% of land.
                        >
                        > But well under half by value...
                        >
                        > > This approach would mean that LVT as we know it would fall on all second
                        > > homes, all empty homes, all under-occupied flats owned by overseas
                        > > investors, all valuable town centre commercial and retail sites,
                        > > out-of-town retail supermarkets and stores (together with their car parks),
                        > > industrial estates, residential/commercial sites with planning permissions
                        > > but yet to be built on and all land banks, empty and underused buildings
                        > > and all brownfield sites.
                        > >
                        > > All land under new homes in the future, built on
                        > > land already paying LVT, would continue to pay LVT and not council tax.
                        >
                        > Ah. I was wondering if the necessity of that provision was appreciated.
                        >
                        > Of course, that means there would be a scramble to "occupy" all the unoccupied residential sites while the LVT enabling legislation wound its way through Parliament....
                        >
                        > > In fact LVT would apply to all the UK’s land area, except occupied homes
                        > > paying council tax at the time LVT was introduced.
                        >
                        > Problem: that means that without the RPE, recent buyers of the taxed land (and their mortgage lenders) will be hit hard as the subsidy value they were counting on disappears.
                        >
                        > > Admittedly, we would “lose” a portion of LVT income, as much of the 98%
                        > > would be low value land operating at or below the margin and most
                        > > residential sites have a relatively high value.
                        >
                        > You would lose about half the revenue obtainable under LVT+UIE+RPE, with the added disadvantage of having to continue shoveling billions in tax revenue into landowners' pockets through income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.
                        >
                        > > This approach might even encourage speculative investment away form commercial land but onto
                        > > people’s homes, but this could be mitigated by revaluing Council Tax values
                        > > and adding more higher bands to Council Tax. But I suggest, the approach I
                        > > am suggesting here could be the most political feasible one at this time.
                        >
                        > Political feasibility is largely a function of what people have been told, or permitted to know. They have not been told or permitted to know the central facts identified in this message. Start telling them the truth, and liberty, justice and prosperity will become a lot more politically feasible.
                        >
                        > > Benefits of Business Rates applied to land values (Location Benefit Charge)
                        > > would be that we will have proven the mechanism for introducing LVT works.
                        > > i.e. the land can be valued, landowners can be identified, LVT can be
                        > > introduced and administered at far lower costs than existing taxes
                        > > (remember David Gauke’s letter above where he stated â€" *“In the
                        > > Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value
                        > > tax…………….. means that such a proposal is not tenable”*, we will have proven
                        > > politicians can be trusted to reduce or even abolish taxes on production,
                        > > that with even a partial LVT unemployment falls and wages do rise naturally
                        > > with businesses prospering and seeking more workers.
                        >
                        > While real wages (especially after-tax) should rise, don't count on nominal wages rising unless you reform the monetary system to separate money creation from land speculation. IMO monetary reform should probably come before LVT. Otherwise, the deflationary effect of declining costs and lack of debt-money creation could kill the economy despite LVT.
                        >
                        > > Remember the last 2010 general election. To help fund the new CrossRail
                        > > deep broad-gauge underground railway line across Greater London, Labour was
                        > > proposing to introduce a Business Rate Supplement on all London businesses
                        > > with a rateable value of over £50,000. If this had applied to homes there
                        > > would have been uproar but as it did not - there was no controversy
                        > > whatsoever, and these contributions are being paid today to fund CrossRail.
                        >
                        > It's true that homeownerism makes it easier to tax anything but housing; however, as explained above, the UIE+RPE removes ordinary homeowners' excuses for opposing LVT.
                        >
                        > > If we propose a non-residential LVT that excludes people’s homes we will
                        > > avoid all the most obvious attacks and especially the rich landowners
                        > > hiding behind the skirts of the “poor widow”. There could be no garden tax
                        > > scare stories and Labour could highlight the unfair land distribution
                        > > represented by aristocrats, such as The Duke of Westminster, who owns and
                        > > controls much of Mayfair and Belgravia.
                        >
                        > If that's the aim, then why not just restrict the exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing? It's easy to prove LVT can't be passed on to tenants, and the elimination of Council Tax on improvements will reduce rental prices. Ordinary homeowners know their back gardens aren't worth £1M, and the "poor widows" who have land worth more than £1M under their houses tend to have "Countess," "Duchess," or the like in front of their names. Of course, under this "resident-owned" exemption system, conversion of housing to owner-occupation would not take taxed land off the LVT rolls, just as under the proposed "occupied residential land" exemption.
                        >
                        > > When fighting a war a good general picks the most favourable ground on
                        > > which to fight â€" thus leaving his enemy at a disadvantage. Neither does he
                        > > expect to win the battle with a full frontal assault on all dispositions of
                        > > the enemy. A Napoleon or a Wellington uses strategy and tactics to often
                        > > marshall his strongest forces to pick his enemy’s weakest spot on which to
                        > > mobilise maximum force and by breaking through, dishearten and depress the
                        > > enemy’s soldiers’ fighting spirit to win the battle â€" and perhaps
                        > > ultimately the war.
                        >
                        > Interesting analogy. Exactly what do you consider the enemy's weakest point? The burden on economic activity posed by current taxes? The fact that land value is the measure of the net subsidy to the landowner, which is paid for by those taxes? Poverty? Inequality? Unemployment? Economic stagnation? Unaffordable housing? Land bubbles and crashes? Budget deficits? The blatant, exorbitant parasitism of the landed aristocracy? The fact that Britons have no right to access opportunity or even to exist in their native country? I would suggest that by declining to tax the value of vast landed estates just because they happen to have tenants living on them, you have already relinquished the high ground, and passed up the opportunity to attack one of the enemy's weakest points.
                        >
                        > > We have a battle on our hands, the 2015 general election may only be our
                        > > latest skirmish in a long war that has waged since the 19th Century,
                        >
                        > Since the fourth millennium BCE, at least.
                        >
                        > > but I believe, with the Location Benefit Charge we can spike the enemies guns,
                        > > win a limited success and go on to achieve 100% LVT in future elections.
                        >
                        > Please consider the superior advantages of the two alternative options I have described here: broad LVT+UIE+RPE; and restriction of the residential exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing +UIE+RPE.
                        >
                        > > Finally, consider our position in 2020 â€" seven years from now and five years after the next election. > Where do you want us to be?
                        >
                        > In a position to DARE other parties to run against the greatest public policy success in recorded history.
                        >
                        > > Ideally, we would want full LVT on all sites. But if full LVT is not
                        > > possible, (and past experience of Labour Governments, even with massive
                        > > majorities in 1945 and 1997 suggests it’s not) which would we prefer â€" no
                        > > attempt to collect any land rent (and possibly yet another development land
                        > > tax) - or LVT being collected on circa 98% of the UK’s land area?
                        >
                        > IMO you need to determine exactly where the resistance lies, and neutralize it. Whenever anyone in the Labour Party expresses opposition to LVT, do not hesitate to ask them, incredulously, "Why do you demand that we force working people to subsidize the rich, greedy parasites who finance the Tories? Are you a Tory mole or something?"
                        >
                        > -- Roy Langston
                        >
                      • David Reed
                        IMO Monetary reform should probably come before LVT . Sure ,that way you could get a lot more money into circulation and make sure it doesn t go into land
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 5, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "IMO Monetary reform should probably come before LVT". Sure ,that way you could get a lot more money into circulation and make sure it doesn't go into land values by a blocking  Mills' tax " from here on" in Martin Wolf's words. You don't need to enact any particular form of monetary reform: a Keynesian boost would suffice, probably best directed at drastically improving the State pension in the UK .This improvement in income would reconcile my generation of baby boomers' to their property being frozen, but not going down, in value in return for a guarantee of more income to spend in the shops where  the older generation are most likely to spend to the hilt.
                          All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT are addressed: nobody pays LVT while land prices stay steady amidst increased spending; there is a transfer of property at a not reduced price on inheritance; people's kids get cheap housing before the baby boomers die, a not inconsiderable benefit when you consider the unpaid child minding grandparents do to allow the parents to work off an inflated mortgage; also the poor widow gets a rest. (Churchill complained she was dragged into so many arguments in 1909 she needed the protection of laws against sweated labour.) 
                          This proposal is a great deal more straightforward than either RL's or DW's and benefits by  addressing the problem of the circulation of money. As has been demonstrated by the strained response to the predicament of Detroit on land café, there are those who believe all you have to do to ensure growth is provide cheap land and all the Opportunity for Liberty or whatever that goes with it. Not good enough. Detroit land is flat out with no signs of the private sector taking advantage of the abundant cheap labour.
                          You describe as garbage Dave Wetzel's "homestead allowance" (actually term once used in  American bankruptcy to keep   a roof over the family's head) but then extemporise an exemption of the first £I million of a house's land value, twice what Dave W initially proposed before coming round to exempting all residential land (and letting  senior Labour Party figures know this was the Labour Land Campaign's new policy : news to them).Does n't add up.
                          "Land Subsidy Repayment" is worth considering. I proposed Land Value Repayment many years ago but it never caught on.  "Subsidy" might do the trick.
                          cTo: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          From: roy_langston@...
                          Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:44:10 +0000
                          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Subway

                           
                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:

                          > Full LVT is the best policy.

                          LVT+UIE is the best policy -- +RPE as a transition measure, if rapid implementation is desired and feasible.

                          > But the UK's Labour Party have already announced that they will NOT
                          > introduce LVT if they form the next government in 2015.

                          Yes, well, we already know they have no ideas other than serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges, as proved by their active complicity in the evisceration of the British middle class for the profit of rich, greedy takers throughout the Blair-Brown era.

                          > They are following the Liberal Democrats in proposing a Mansion Tax on all homes worth more than £2m.

                          Which is guaranteed to fail, as already explained.

                          > They are also proposing that local authorities be given powers to levy a charge on residential land banks (i.e. land with planning permission for
                          > housing but kept idle and undeveloped for years). This will be easily
                          > avoided by developers and house builders acquiring land but not seeking
                          > planning permission for housing until ready to build in many years time. (A site opposite where I live has been empty for 25 years).

                          Right. They know very well their plan will shovel additional billions into the pockets of the parasitic landed aristocracy and gentry, and that is their only real intention.

                          > There have been 4 Labour Governments since WW2 and each one has proposed a development land tax.

                          I.e., not LVT but a tax on improvements to make sure the UK's housing stock remains an under-supplied, overpriced shambles.

                          > Dave Reed may be happy for the next Labour Government to adopt yet another disastrous Development Land Tax

                          He appears to deny it, and instead favors the little-better "sometime real soon now" Mill tax.

                          > but I'm looking for a second-best policy.

                          Why settle for second best, when the best (see above) is superior in every way?

                          > I'd welcome opinions but am now going to be abroad for a week and unlikely to be able to get online to respond.

                          IMO those who think LVT+UIE+RPE is not politically salable just haven't thought it through, and have too little confidence in ordinary voters' ability to judge where their interests lie WHEN THEY ARE INFORMED OF THE RELEVANT FACTS.

                          > Except for a few limited successes at local levels around the world, where
                          > a small amount of land rent has been collected (with beneficial results)

                          Japan's LVT-based economic "miracles" in the Meiji and post-war Showa eras were not local or small.

                          > and despite the correctness of our arguments, those of us advocating an
                          > Annual Land Value Tax (LVT) to replace taxes on production have totally
                          > failed to convince the mass of people, academics and political leaders
                          > around the world of the benefits (including social justice, sound
                          > economics, addressing climate change,

                          Careful. We must not hitch our wagon to that fading star.

                          > the housing problem and the
                          > elimination of poverty) that arise from the collection of the economic rent
                          > of land and other natural resources and applied to fund public services.

                          Probably because like Henry George and most other LVT advocates, you have not understood the absolute, crucial necessity of the UIE, and the RPE as a transition measure.

                          > It is not the purpose of this paper to postulate on the causes of our
                          > failure but here in the UK we have had to overcome the power of the
                          > landowners’ lobby, the distortion of the teaching of economics and a
                          > hostile and ill-informed “conservative� press and media. We have also seen
                          > social changes whereby almost 70% of households are now freeholders of
                          > their own homes

                          The actual rate of homeownership is 68%, and that includes strata and leasehold ownership as well as mortgaged "freehold" ownership. Do not be deceived by the blandishments of the landed who pretend that owning improvements implies an identity of interests with those who own the land under them.

                          > and many others either aspire to purchase freeholds or to inherit
                          > over-inflated priced homes from their relatives.

                          First, evil forces its victims to participate in it in self-defense. Then it makes them dependent on it. Finally, it recruits them as its most passionate defenders.

                          Ordinary homeowners must be informed of the fact that they have been, and are being, robbed, cheated, and forcibly deprived of their rights without just compensation, and then tricked into believing they profit by that crime if they pay even more to buy back some of what has been stolen from them. Have we informed them of that fact? No? Then there is no need to postulate on the causes of our failure, because we already know the cause: not telling the truth.

                          > How can we neutralise the negative forces against us and persuade The British Labour Party
                          > to adopt an Annual Land Value Tax and then get the British electorate to vote for it?

                          LVT+UIE+RPE. And monetary reform.

                          > The Lib/Dems, and now Labour, advocate the Mansion Tax which although not
                          > ideal will, in practice, mostly fall upon the economic rent of residential
                          > properties worth over £2m. To be more practical the valuation for Mansion
                          > Tax should be on land value only and the starting figure should be no more
                          > than say £500k â€" leaving most residences (£500k plus building value) outside the scope of the Mansion Tax.

                          Exempt people, not property. That is absolutely crucial.

                          > The unusual financial difficulties that an incoming Government will face in
                          > 2015 and the current public outcry on tax avoidance also creates an opening
                          > for more creative thinking re taxation e.g. The Tax Justice Network, who
                          > have campaigned for many years for Government to close tax avoidance
                          > loopholes for business and especially multinationals also advocates LVT and
                          > there is a growing interest in new alternatives such as The Tobin Tax. The
                          > Labour front bench has a credibility problem as they intend to fund more
                          > public infrastructure, to reduce VAT and not to increase income tax or
                          > other taxes. At the present time Labour is also pledged to continue with
                          > unpopular cuts to repay the deficit.

                          While LVT+UIE enables massive cuts to the government spending on "poverty relief" and pensions that just goes into landowners' pockets. Why not start cutting the least justifiable spending?

                          > Given these contradictory pressures, I believe this opens up to us a unique
                          > opportunity to propose the principles of LVT to the Labour Movement and
                          > especially the Labour party’s front bench team.

                          Agreed. So, why abandon the principles of LVT for an inferior notion that is guaranteed to fail?

                          > We first need to realistically assess the likelihood of persuading the
                          > Labour Party to advocate full LVT in the next two years.

                          Have you tried telling them the truth? I.e., that the policies they currently advocate are 100% guaranteed to fail, while LVT+UIE+RPE plus monetary reform is guaranteed not only to succeed at the polls, but to make Britain Europe's leading economic power and the world's richest country within a single generation?

                          > 1. Householders (including tenants) worried about having to pay an
                          > ADDITIONAL tax because they don't see LVT replacing existing taxes as
                          > being credible as they don't trust politicians to reduce any taxes.

                          Answer: "We will reduce total taxes as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run in the next election."

                          The REASON politicians can't reduce taxes under the current system is that all the spending goes to landowners. Once you break free of that compulsory subsidy, reducing taxes becomes possible.

                          > 2. Economists and others claim you can't value land

                          That is a fatuous, cretinous lie disproved by every competent real estate appraiser every working day of his life.

                          Have you tried informing those who make that claim of that fact?

                          > and a single tax can’t work.

                          We don't propose a single tax. That's just physiocratic-Georgist moonshine we have long since outgrown. What we propose is the elimination of arbitrary, unjust, destructive and evil taxes, and their replacement with a voluntary, just, and beneficial system of repaying the public treasury for taking publicly created value.

                          > 3. Homeowners worry about the loss of freehold value

                          Freehold value is an illusion for all who own only their own residences, because they can't liquidate it: they have to live somewhere. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, try selling it and living like a millionaire on the proceeds. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, how much money do you have left at the end of the month after paying your mortgage, your income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc., etc.? Do you really think that paying 10K/yr in taxes and getting back 5K/yr in land rent so that others can pay little or no taxes and pocket 1M/yr in land rent is a good deal for you??

                          > (especially those approaching retirement with no or a little pension and scarce savings).

                          The UIE guarantees they won't need any savings, nor much of a pension, and does so at landlords' expense, not taxpayers' expense.

                          > 4. People with elderly relatives hoping to inherit their freehold property don't want home values to fall.

                          Greedy scum. Forget 'em.

                          > 5. New mortgagees are worried that they will have to continue to pay high repayments on their loans and fork out for LVT as well.

                          UIE+RPE removes that threat.

                          > 6. If council tax (CT) is abolished and replaced by LVT then freeholders
                          > will save on their CT but pay their existing mortgage plus LVT

                          Minus UIE+RPE, remember. While the past errors of the physiocrats and Georgists may be understandable, nowadays no one could be morally, economically, or politically naive enough to propose LVT without UIE+RPE.

                          > but their
                          > neighbour next door will save on their CT pay their current rent but their landlord (the landowner) will pick up the LVT bill.

                          That sounds right. Why would anyone but a greedy, evil parasite or a lickspittle of greedy, evil parasites want to keep honest working people poor in order to make rich, greedy takers even richer?

                          > 7. The poor widow, (income poor-asset rich problem) is always being thrown up as an objection to LVT.

                          The UIE ensures that she suffers no real hardship, and there are many other happy alternatives available to her to use her location more productively, such as taking in lodgers, renting out garden or parking space, renting out daytime space to a daycare, etc. The local Office of Poor Widow Assistance can help her identify the best solution. In extremis, compassionate deferments are available.

                          The point is, the poor widow's incentive to seek accommodation better suited to her needs and means is a BENEFIT of LVT, enabling the free market's movement of resources into the most productive hands. Never tolerate the despicable fabrications of people who claim to speak for the poor widow. ASK THE WIDOW HERSELF if she would prefer that her children and grandchildren live their whole lives in poverty and desperation, enslaved by landowners and mortgage lenders, so that she need not suffer the inconvenience of moving to more suitable accommodation (or have one of the grandchildren move in with her, along with their UIE), or if she would rather live in a more suitable place, so that her children and grandchildren could enjoy their human rights to liberty, and live fulfilling lives in a free, just, and prosperous society. And don't let her or anyone else get away with pretending there is any other alternative.

                          > In the Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value tax,

                          Which would be microscopic compared to the complexity and cost of administering any other tax of comparable revenue capacity...

                          > and more importantly, the likelihood of a significant number of losers,

                          Who very much deserve to lose, but give millions to the Tories...

                          > with many council tax payers facing higher tax bills and asset rich cash poor groups
                          > (e.g. pensioners) being particularly hard hit, means that such a proposal is not tenable.

                          "Asset rich but cash poor" just means, "unproductively hoarding valuable resources." The facts of economics and history are going to rub that evil, lying sack of $#!+'s nose in what's "tenable."

                          > The Government therefore has no intention of introducing a land value tax at this time.�***

                          Or ever.

                          > Therefore, I believe we need to recommend an alternative strategy to full
                          > LVT if we are to see a new Labour government avoid yet another form of development land tax.

                          And I've provided it: LVT+UIE+RPE. Just tell the truth, and expose the lies. NEVER let despicable, lying scum get away with rationalizing privilege, justifying injustice and excusing evil.

                          > Whenever I advocate LVT to Labour politicians invariably the questions of
                          > “the poor widow�, “how will this affect my voters?� “opposition of the
                          > popular press� and “how do we successfully persuade householders to vote
                          > for a tax on their own homes?â€� or put more glibly â€" “How do we persuade
                          > turkeys to vote for Xmas?� arise.

                          Have you asked ME? I can show you how. I can even show you how to establish a complete, accurately valued cadastre in three months, from a standing start.

                          > We do have adequate policy answers: there are very few poor people in valuable properties,

                          More to the point, there are NO poor people WHATEVER, anywhere in the world, or at any time in human history, who OWN valuable properties. We need to get the cretinous and dishonest "income, not wealth, is the measure of wealth," garbage out of people's heads.

                          > widows can move, take in lodgers or defer payment,

                          Right. It would be a trivial matter to establish a government office of advisors devoted to helping the poor widows either use their locations more productively or find accommodation better suited to their needs and means.

                          > taxes on their incomes and trade (VAT) will be reduced.

                          And they will certainly have their UIEs and RPEs, without which no one in the 21st century with any brains would propose LVT.

                          > Householders can be given a homestead allowance to reduce the impact of LVT,

                          No, of course they can't. We have to get that kind of ridiculous, self-defeating garbage out of people's heads once and for all. The only permissible kind of exemption for properties is the RPE, which is a limited and self-extinguishing transition measure. If we ever want to succeed, homestead allowances, broad "occupied residential land" exemptions, etc. have to be taken permanently and unconditionally off the table, because they are only ways to guarantee that LVT fails.

                          > and other taxes on incomes and trade could be cut etc. etc.

                          No, they WILL be ABOLISHED. That is absolutely crucial. We must be able to show people, including homeowners, comparisons proving they will be far better off with LVT, and then make good on them.

                          > However, none of these appear to be satisfactory to most voters or Labour politicians

                          Have you tried identifying the relevant facts clearly, as I do?

                          > and we have no adequate answer to hostility in the popular press.

                          Sure we do: identify their lies as such loudly, publicly, and often.

                          > In recent discussions on the Mansion Tax, the press have described
                          > deferral (or rollover) of the Mansion Tax as yet another inheritance tax

                          "That is of course a stupid lie. What stupid lie will the press come up with next? Are estates' payments of the deceased's income tax arrears also 'yet another inheritance tax'? Whose interests is the press serving by constantly telling such stupid lies?"

                          > and in Scotland, Green Party proposals for LVT were described in newspapers
                          > as “a tax on your garden�.

                          "This newspaper has apparently decided it is better for HM government to steal the honest wages of the working poor by taxing them away than to recover the publicly created value of the Duke of Westminster's vast 'back gardens' for the purposes and benefit of the public that created it."

                          > In addition, few voters believe politicians
                          > would use LVT to replace other taxes but it would just become an additional
                          > burden for voters to pay.

                          That's easy: "We will reduce total taxation as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election. We will reduce the total tax burden on at least 90% of resident homeowners who own only their own homes by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election."

                          > Consequently, if we are to be successful in introducing LVT in the next
                          > seven years, I think it is incumbent upon us to rethink our message and
                          > offer the Labour front bench a credible form of LVT (credible in as much it
                          > is acceptable to them but works in harmony and not in opposition to our
                          > understanding of the theory of economic rent).

                          It is a mistake to imagine that the Labour front bench got there by being interested in liberty, justice or prosperity. They are servants of privilege, and have no interest in, or understanding of, anything but serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges.

                          > The abolition of slavery did
                          > not commence with the demand to free all slaves immediately but was
                          > eventually successful following over 100 years of arguments to first outlaw
                          > the slave trade and then to abolish slavery itself. Equally, the transfer
                          > of countries from rule by the British Empire to self-determination did not
                          > happen in one fell swoop but took over two hundred years from 1783 with the
                          > loss of the United States.

                          Then maybe it's time to start identifying the facts, as I do.

                          > Similarly, perhaps we should be seeking an immediate partial land reform that works in harmony with our ultimate concept of LVT

                          What's wrong with eliminating taxation of improvements and taxing only land value on a revenue-neutral basis? That way, we can establish our abolition-not-addition bona fides.

                          > rather continuing in the land value tax promotion of the past 130 years,
                          > arguing only for pure LVT and achieving almost nothing.

                          I've explained how to fix that.

                          > This dichotomy is demonstrated by the
                          > debate on Mansion Tax where the purists on LVT argue we should keep the
                          > faith and reject a tax on buildings even though the Mansion Tax will in
                          > practice fall mainly on the rental value of land of these valuable homes.

                          BUT IT GETS THE INCENTIVES WRONG, which is why it will and must FAIL.

                          > Therefore, I am proposing that at this unique time in UK history we suggest
                          > to Labour politicians that they promise at the next general election to
                          > introduce a partial LVT to replace the Business Rates (perhaps called a
                          > Location Benefit Charge (LBC)?).

                          How about "Land Subsidy Repayment"? That's how to frame the debate. Don't talk about a tax. Talk about requiring rich, greedy parasites to repay the subsidy they are being given in return for nothing.

                          > This LBC would consist of an annual Land
                          > Value Tax (that is a percentage tax on the annual land rental value, based
                          > on the optimum permitted use of each site) introduced on *ALL* land except
                          > occupied family homes.

                          Requiring occupancy is at least a baby step in the right direction: exempting people, not property. The necessity of verifying occupancy implies maintenance and use of records of residential address, so why not just do the right thing from the outset, and give every resident citizen an equal exemption? It would be a trivial matter to set the exemption amount and tax rate at such levels that typical homeowners would pay little or no LSR, which is the putative intention of exempting occupied residences. But the UIE would have enormous additional benefits, such as reducing housing prices and enabling government to slash the subsidy to landowners that it pays in the form of income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.

                          > The exemption would apply to all occupied homes
                          > irrespective of tenure whether it be freehold, tenant, shared ownership,
                          > leasehold or co-operative ownership.

                          Again, that is grossly inequitable. The proposed occupied residential land exemption subsidizes those who own the most expensive residential land occupied at the highest per capita land value, at the expense of tenants and those who own the cheapest land and occupy it at the lowest per capita land value.

                          > Of course, parks, playing fields, and sites below the margin would be zero value for LVT purposes.

                          What's the tax status of church properties in the UK? Are they tax-free, or taxed at negligible value?

                          > Poor hill farmers and small market gardeners would
                          > not pay LVT on their homes and their farm fields are usually situated on
                          > very low value land and therefore the savings they will make on the other
                          > tax reductions will probably far exceed their low LVT payments.

                          Especially as the UIE provides them with free, secure access to enough of that low-value land to make a living.

                          > The only sites excluded from LVT would be sites with homes that are
                          > currently occupied and paying council tax. (“Occupation� would allow for
                          > homes where the family are away on holiday or reasonable periods of work).

                          I.e., it would be based on residence of record. So if you are going to use that data anyway, why not use it properly, to administer a UIE?

                          > Council tax would continue to be paid on these homes

                          Council Tax is an abomination. WHY NOT JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?

                          > but we need to remember that both Labour and the Lib/Dems are already pledged to introduce
                          > the new mansion tax on all homes worth over £2m. As stated above the
                          > valuation for Mansion Tax on homes (land and building) worth over £2m
                          > should only fall on the land value, for why would we want to penalise
                          > owners who wish to improve their homes?

                          Why would we want to subsidize owners who occupy the most land value per resident, as the "occupied residential land exemption" does?

                          > Residential use represents about 2% of land area in this country, so
                          > partial LVT would still apply to circa 98% of land.

                          But well under half by value...

                          > This approach would mean that LVT as we know it would fall on all second
                          > homes, all empty homes, all under-occupied flats owned by overseas
                          > investors, all valuable town centre commercial and retail sites,
                          > out-of-town retail supermarkets and stores (together with their car parks),
                          > industrial estates, residential/commercial sites with planning permissions
                          > but yet to be built on and all land banks, empty and underused buildings
                          > and all brownfield sites.
                          >
                          > All land under new homes in the future, built on
                          > land already paying LVT, would continue to pay LVT and not council tax.

                          Ah. I was wondering if the necessity of that provision was appreciated.

                          Of course, that means there would be a scramble to "occupy" all the unoccupied residential sites while the LVT enabling legislation wound its way through Parliament....

                          > In fact LVT would apply to all the UK’s land area, except occupied homes
                          > paying council tax at the time LVT was introduced.

                          Problem: that means that without the RPE, recent buyers of the taxed land (and their mortgage lenders) will be hit hard as the subsidy value they were counting on disappears.

                          > Admittedly, we would “lose� a portion of LVT income, as much of the 98%
                          > would be low value land operating at or below the margin and most
                          > residential sites have a relatively high value.

                          You would lose about half the revenue obtainable under LVT+UIE+RPE, with the added disadvantage of having to continue shoveling billions in tax revenue into landowners' pockets through income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.

                          > This approach might even encourage speculative investment away form commercial land but onto
                          > people’s homes, but this could be mitigated by revaluing Council Tax values
                          > and adding more higher bands to Council Tax. But I suggest, the approach I
                          > am suggesting here could be the most political feasible one at this time.

                          Political feasibility is largely a function of what people have been told, or permitted to know. They have not been told or permitted to know the central facts identified in this message. Start telling them the truth, and liberty, justice and prosperity will become a lot more politically feasible.

                          > Benefits of Business Rates applied to land values (Location Benefit Charge)
                          > would be that we will have proven the mechanism for introducing LVT works.
                          > i.e. the land can be valued, landowners can be identified, LVT can be
                          > introduced and administered at far lower costs than existing taxes
                          > (remember David Gauke’s letter above where he stated â€" *“In the
                          > Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value
                          > tax…………….. means that such a proposal is not tenable�*, we will have proven
                          > politicians can be trusted to reduce or even abolish taxes on production,
                          > that with even a partial LVT unemployment falls and wages do rise naturally
                          > with businesses prospering and seeking more workers.

                          While real wages (especially after-tax) should rise, don't count on nominal wages rising unless you reform the monetary system to separate money creation from land speculation. IMO monetary reform should probably come before LVT. Otherwise, the deflationary effect of declining costs and lack of debt-money creation could kill the economy despite LVT.

                          > Remember the last 2010 general election. To help fund the new CrossRail
                          > deep broad-gauge underground railway line across Greater London, Labour was
                          > proposing to introduce a Business Rate Supplement on all London businesses
                          > with a rateable value of over £50,000. If this had applied to homes there
                          > would have been uproar but as it did not - there was no controversy
                          > whatsoever, and these contributions are being paid today to fund CrossRail.

                          It's true that homeownerism makes it easier to tax anything but housing; however, as explained above, the UIE+RPE removes ordinary homeowners' excuses for opposing LVT.

                          > If we propose a non-residential LVT that excludes people’s homes we will
                          > avoid all the most obvious attacks and especially the rich landowners
                          > hiding behind the skirts of the “poor widow�. There could be no garden tax
                          > scare stories and Labour could highlight the unfair land distribution
                          > represented by aristocrats, such as The Duke of Westminster, who owns and
                          > controls much of Mayfair and Belgravia.

                          If that's the aim, then why not just restrict the exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing? It's easy to prove LVT can't be passed on to tenants, and the elimination of Council Tax on improvements will reduce rental prices. Ordinary homeowners know their back gardens aren't worth £1M, and the "poor widows" who have land worth more than £1M under their houses tend to have "Countess," "Duchess," or the like in front of their names. Of course, under this "resident-owned" exemption system, conversion of housing to owner-occupation would not take taxed land off the LVT rolls, just as under the proposed "occupied residential land" exemption.

                          > When fighting a war a good general picks the most favourable ground on
                          > which to fight â€" thus leaving his enemy at a disadvantage. Neither does he
                          > expect to win the battle with a full frontal assault on all dispositions of
                          > the enemy. A Napoleon or a Wellington uses strategy and tactics to often
                          > marshall his strongest forces to pick his enemy’s weakest spot on which to
                          > mobilise maximum force and by breaking through, dishearten and depress the
                          > enemy’s soldiers’ fighting spirit to win the battle â€" and perhaps
                          > ultimately the war.

                          Interesting analogy. Exactly what do you consider the enemy's weakest point? The burden on economic activity posed by current taxes? The fact that land value is the measure of the net subsidy to the landowner, which is paid for by those taxes? Poverty? Inequality? Unemployment? Economic stagnation? Unaffordable housing? Land bubbles and crashes? Budget deficits? The blatant, exorbitant parasitism of the landed aristocracy? The fact that Britons have no right to access opportunity or even to exist in their native country? I would suggest that by declining to tax the value of vast landed estates just because they happen to have tenants living on them, you have already relinquished the high ground, and passed up the opportunity to attack one of the enemy's weakest points.

                          > We have a battle on our hands, the 2015 general election may only be our
                          > latest skirmish in a long war that has waged since the 19th Century,

                          Since the fourth millennium BCE, at least.

                          > but I believe, with the Location Benefit Charge we can spike the enemies guns,
                          > win a limited success and go on to achieve 100% LVT in future elections.

                          Please consider the superior advantages of the two alternative options I have described here: broad LVT+UIE+RPE; and restriction of the residential exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing +UIE+RPE.

                          > Finally, consider our position in 2020 â€" seven years from now and five years after the next election. > Where do you want us to be?

                          In a position to DARE other parties to run against the greatest public policy success in recorded history.

                          > Ideally, we would want full LVT on all sites. But if full LVT is not
                          > possible, (and past experience of Labour Governments, even with massive
                          > majorities in 1945 and 1997 suggests it’s not) which would we prefer â€" no
                          > attempt to collect any land rent (and possibly yet another development land
                          > tax) - or LVT being collected on circa 98% of the UK’s land area?

                          IMO you need to determine exactly where the resistance lies, and neutralize it. Whenever anyone in the Labour Party expresses opposition to LVT, do not hesitate to ask them, incredulously, "Why do you demand that we force working people to subsidize the rich, greedy parasites who finance the Tories? Are you a Tory mole or something?"

                          -- Roy Langston


                        • roy_langston
                          ... The main idea is to take control of the money supply away from rich, greedy, privileged private banksters, who would certainly use their current power over
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 5, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                            > "IMO Monetary reform should probably come before LVT". Sure ,that way you could get a lot more money into circulation and make sure it doesn't go into land values by a blocking Mills' tax " from here on" in Martin Wolf's words.

                            The main idea is to take control of the money supply away from rich, greedy, privileged private banksters, who would certainly use their current power over it to sabotage LVT by contracting the money supply and crashing the economy. The needed reform is to remove private banks' privilege of creating debt money by lending it into existence, and put control of the money supply in the hands of an independent Mint whose sole mandate is price stability. The Mint would track commodity prices, and print just enough money to keep them steady, delivering that money to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

                            > You don't need to enact any particular form of monetary reform: a Keynesian boost would suffice, probably best directed at drastically improving the State pension in the UK .

                            That is touchingly naive, at best. A "Keynesian boost" would be like pushing on a string in the face of greedy private banksters' collusion with privileged anti-LVT landowning interests to contract the money supply and crash the economy. If we are going to remove the value of land titles as the main privilege banks lend for and against, it is ESSENTIAL also to remove private banksters' power over the money supply.

                            > This improvement in income would reconcile my generation of baby boomers' to their property being frozen, but not going down, in value in return for a guarantee of more income to spend in the shops where the older generation are most likely to spend to the hilt.

                            Even if land values could be frozen (and I've never seen a description of an actual Mill tax mechanism that would do that), their property would decline in value as the improvements depreciated. And even if such a tax mechanism could be devised, leaving the money supply in banksters' control would just mean the required borrowing would be undertaken by someone else: speculators in stocks, debt instruments, IP monopolies, etc.; people buying up land in other countries; or, if all else fails, governments.

                            > All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT are addressed: nobody pays LVT while land prices stay steady amidst increased spending;

                            HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY HAPPEN? Once again, you apparently believe that it is rising house prices per se that are the problem, and not merely a symptom of the systematic injustices that constitute landowner privilege.

                            > there is a transfer of property at a not reduced price on inheritance; people's kids get cheap housing before the baby boomers die, a not inconsiderable benefit when you consider the unpaid child minding grandparents do to allow the parents to work off an inflated mortgage;

                            It is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain property prices while also providing cheap housing.

                            > also the poor widow gets a rest.

                            How do you prevent her land from rising in value without imposing a tax liability to offset its rising rent?

                            > This proposal is a great deal more straightforward than either RL's or DW's

                            Please describe EXACTLY how it would work.

                            > and benefits by addressing the problem of the circulation of money.

                            It is not the circulation of money that would be the problem, but its creation/destruction.

                            > As has been demonstrated by the strained response to the predicament of Detroit on land café, there are those who believe all you have to do to ensure growth is provide cheap land and all the Opportunity for Liberty or whatever that goes with it.

                            And eliminate the tax on improvements, which Detroit imposes at the highest rate in the USA -- or the world, AFAIK.

                            > Not good enough.

                            Liberty and justice are definitely good enough. They're just not good enough for those who prefer privilege.

                            > Detroit land is flat out with no signs of the private sector taking advantage of the abundant cheap labour.

                            Why would any private investor want to spend money on improvements in Detroit, when he will be taxed on them at a rate comparable to his financing cost, and the tiny rent of the location can't justify the investment anyway?

                            > You describe as garbage Dave Wetzel's "homestead allowance" (actually term once used in American bankruptcy to keep a roof over the family's head) but then extemporise an exemption of the first £I million of a house's land value, twice what Dave W initially proposed before coming round to exempting all residential land (and letting senior Labour Party figures know this was the Labour Land Campaign's new policy : news to them).Does n't add up.

                            £1M was just a round number. If it could be half that, or less, and still prevent the "poor widow" and "back garden" propaganda, I'd be for it. It should be as little as politically feasible. The point is that politically, if you really have to exempt land rather than people, you only have to exempt the land under middle-class owner-occupied residences to stop the dishonest "poor widow" and "back garden" crap, not all occupied residential land.

                            > "Land Subsidy Repayment" is worth considering. I proposed Land Value Repayment many years ago but it never caught on. "Subsidy" might do the trick.

                            Thanks. IMO we do need to hit people over the head with it. Maybe "Location Subsidy Repayment" would be even better, to remove some of the objections like, "You can't value land," "If I have to pay a tax on it, I don't really own it," etc. We are then no longer proposing a tax but the repayment of a subsidy. If anyone objects, always bring the answer back to the subsidy:

                            "Can you explain why you insist the government continue to give such large subsidies to landowners, paid for by everyone else's taxes?"

                            "Is it fair that working people and consumers are being taxed so heavily to provide these unsustainable subsidies to landowners, who don't do anything to earn them?"

                            "We can measure the subsidy by the location's market value. That's the minimum subsidy the landowner expects to pocket after subtracting all the taxes he pays on the location."

                            Etc.

                            -- Roy Langston
                          • David Reed
                            @RL I am more in agreement with you over bank reform than you seem to realise. All the points you make about government spending being better funded by the
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 18, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              @RL
                               I am more in agreement with you over bank reform  than you seem to realise. All the points you make about government spending being better funded by the national bank (the Canadian Bank seems to have been instituted/nationalised precisely for the purpose of creating money to fund public projects) are more than OK by me. However,  it would appear unlikely that in the present fix we would achieve taxation reform and bank reform at much the same time, given that neither necessary reform has made much progress on its own. So trying to work within the conventional framework and injecting Keynesian demand stimulus into the economy is more politically feasible (but probably already off limits in the UK where the Coalition has convinced the electorate that low interest rates should boost the voters' house prices but nothing else).Obviously such an  injection of demand would require inflation safeguarding in the form of land value repayment, should money be hedged into real estate rather than spent on goods and services.
                               I am surprised that you do not think" house prices per se... are the problem " but are merely a symptom of the systematic  injustices that constitute landowning privilege." News from Vancouver is of an imminent house price crash. Since the whole UK political process has been hegemonised by political parties that keep up post-crunch house prices at all costs  with no regard for real wages which are worse by some measures than those in crashed- out Spain, I would have thought house prices are the place to start. The task is to convince enough people they would better off with stable house prices and rising real wages( as the UK had pre abolition of taxes on housing such a Schedule A in 1963).
                              For this reason I am not keen on your revised ( downward) land value exemption of £500,000 per house in line with Dave Wetzel's earlier proposal. Neither can I see the point of any exemption including the UIE that would do anything to inflate house prices. Setting an upward limit at half a million pounds would, in the present corrupt political system, serve as a green light to yet another housing bubble in which £500k becomes the inflated average price. (Max Keiser, whose TV programme is now based in London has threatened to eat his shorts  on air if there is no UK property bubble in the next three years. And that is without exemptions).All exemptions are just subsidies that inflate house prices. They may go to the "little people" but on aggregate these people become a power bloc that wrecks the economy just as surely as big landowners ( who do not have so many votes).
                              On a positive note: your comments on  land value repayments are very refreshing. CoOperative Individualism lists me as calling for "Social Values Repayments" in Spring 2001 but I tried to get the Labour Land Campaign to adopt the term" Land Value Repayment" earlier , without success.  It seems to me that the term repayment short circuits the argument "Why do we have to pay this tax?" .All the would be evader could say  instead is "Why do I have to repay money that has come my way through the efforts of society?" Shifting the argument onto the repayment level is almost certainly the place to start for land taxers in their internal discussions. 

                               To: LandCafe@...
                              From: roy_langston@...
                              Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:19:08 +0000
                              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Subway + Non residential LVT

                               
                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                              > "IMO Monetary reform should probably come before LVT". Sure ,that way you could get a lot more money into circulation and make sure it doesn't go into land values by a blocking Mills' tax " from here on" in Martin Wolf's words.

                              The main idea is to take control of the money supply away from rich, greedy, privileged private banksters, who would certainly use their current power over it to sabotage LVT by contracting the money supply and crashing the economy. The needed reform is to remove private banks' privilege of creating debt money by lending it into existence, and put control of the money supply in the hands of an independent Mint whose sole mandate is price stability. The Mint would track commodity prices, and print just enough money to keep them steady, delivering that money to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

                              > You don't need to enact any particular form of monetary reform: a Keynesian boost would suffice, probably best directed at drastically improving the State pension in the UK .

                              That is touchingly naive, at best. A "Keynesian boost" would be like pushing on a string in the face of greedy private banksters' collusion with privileged anti-LVT landowning interests to contract the money supply and crash the economy. If we are going to remove the value of land titles as the main privilege banks lend for and against, it is ESSENTIAL also to remove private banksters' power over the money supply.

                              > This improvement in income would reconcile my generation of baby boomers' to their property being frozen, but not going down, in value in return for a guarantee of more income to spend in the shops where the older generation are most likely to spend to the hilt.

                              Even if land values could be frozen (and I've never seen a description of an actual Mill tax mechanism that would do that), their property would decline in value as the improvements depreciated. And even if such a tax mechanism could be devised, leaving the money supply in banksters' control would just mean the required borrowing would be undertaken by someone else: speculators in stocks, debt instruments, IP monopolies, etc.; people buying up land in other countries; or, if all else fails, governments.

                              > All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT are addressed: nobody pays LVT while land prices stay steady amidst increased spending;

                              HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY HAPPEN? Once again, you apparently believe that it is rising house prices per se that are the problem, and not merely a symptom of the systematic injustices that constitute landowner privilege.

                              > there is a transfer of property at a not reduced price on inheritance; people's kids get cheap housing before the baby boomers die, a not inconsiderable benefit when you consider the unpaid child minding grandparents do to allow the parents to work off an inflated mortgage;

                              It is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain property prices while also providing cheap housing.

                              > also the poor widow gets a rest.

                              How do you prevent her land from rising in value without imposing a tax liability to offset its rising rent?

                              > This proposal is a great deal more straightforward than either RL's or DW's

                              Please describe EXACTLY how it would work.

                              > and benefits by addressing the problem of the circulation of money.

                              It is not the circulation of money that would be the problem, but its creation/destruction.

                              > As has been demonstrated by the strained response to the predicament of Detroit on land café, there are those who believe all you have to do to ensure growth is provide cheap land and all the Opportunity for Liberty or whatever that goes with it.

                              And eliminate the tax on improvements, which Detroit imposes at the highest rate in the USA -- or the world, AFAIK.

                              > Not good enough.

                              Liberty and justice are definitely good enough. They're just not good enough for those who prefer privilege.

                              > Detroit land is flat out with no signs of the private sector taking advantage of the abundant cheap labour.

                              Why would any private investor want to spend money on improvements in Detroit, when he will be taxed on them at a rate comparable to his financing cost, and the tiny rent of the location can't justify the investment anyway?

                              > You describe as garbage Dave Wetzel's "homestead allowance" (actually term once used in American bankruptcy to keep a roof over the family's head) but then extemporise an exemption of the first £I million of a house's land value, twice what Dave W initially proposed before coming round to exempting all residential land (and letting senior Labour Party figures know this was the Labour Land Campaign's new policy : news to them).Does n't add up.

                              £1M was just a round number. If it could be half that, or less, and still prevent the "poor widow" and "back garden" propaganda, I'd be for it. It should be as little as politically feasible. The point is that politically, if you really have to exempt land rather than people, you only have to exempt the land under middle-class owner-occupied residences to stop the dishonest "poor widow" and "back garden" crap, not all occupied residential land.

                              > "Land Subsidy Repayment" is worth considering. I proposed Land Value Repayment many years ago but it never caught on. "Subsidy" might do the trick.

                              Thanks. IMO we do need to hit people over the head with it. Maybe "Location Subsidy Repayment" would be even better, to remove some of the objections like, "You can't value land," "If I have to pay a tax on it, I don't really own it," etc. We are then no longer proposing a tax but the repayment of a subsidy. If anyone objects, always bring the answer back to the subsidy:

                              "Can you explain why you insist the government continue to give such large subsidies to landowners, paid for by everyone else's taxes?"

                              "Is it fair that working people and consumers are being taxed so heavily to provide these unsustainable subsidies to landowners, who don't do anything to earn them?"

                              "We can measure the subsidy by the location's market value. That's the minimum subsidy the landowner expects to pocket after subtracting all the taxes he pays on the location."

                              Etc.

                              -- Roy Langston


                            • roy_langston
                              ... That s true. But IMO bank/monetary reform would be much easier to sell, and its demonstrated success would make LSR more politically feasible as well as
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 18, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                                > All the points you make about government spending being better funded by the national bank (the Canadian Bank seems to have been instituted/nationalised precisely for the purpose of creating money to fund public projects) are more than OK by me. However, it would appear unlikely that in the present fix we would achieve taxation reform and bank reform at much the same time, given that neither necessary reform has made much progress on its own.

                                That's true. But IMO bank/monetary reform would be much easier to sell, and its demonstrated success would make LSR more politically feasible as well as safer and more economically beneficial to everyone but banksters. Introduction of LSR after banking reform would enable the government to take advantage of the declining production cost base to issue more money in place of taxes to keep nominal prices and wages from dropping.

                                > So trying to work within the conventional framework and injecting Keynesian demand stimulus into the economy is more politically feasible

                                Of course it's more politically feasible. Every kind of sop to rich, greedy, privileged takers is more politically feasible than justice. That is exactly the problem, exactly the constraint we have to break free of.

                                > (but probably already off limits in the UK where the Coalition has convinced the electorate that low interest rates should boost the voters' house prices but nothing else).

                                And popular acceptance of the notion that that is somehow a good thing is the reason house prices cannot be the object of our attack.

                                > Obviously such an injection of demand would require inflation safeguarding in the form of land value repayment, should money be hedged into real estate rather than spent on goods and services.

                                But letting banksters do it wastes a golden opportunity to reduce taxes by instead issuing fiat money to keep prices stable.

                                > I am surprised that you do not think" house prices per se... are the problem " but are merely a symptom of the systematic injustices that constitute landowning privilege." News from Vancouver is of an imminent house price crash.

                                It's been "imminent" for over 20 years.

                                > Since the whole UK political process has been hegemonised by political parties that keep up post-crunch house prices at all costs with no regard for real wages which are worse by some measures than those in crashed- out Spain, I would have thought house prices are the place to start.

                                No, because house prices are perceived as equivalent to homeowners' financial well-being. We have enough problems without attacking homeownerism head-on.

                                > The task is to convince enough people they would better off with stable house prices and rising real wages( as the UK had pre abolition of taxes on housing such a Schedule A in 1963).

                                No, real after-taxes-and-rent wages -- real disposable income -- because we should expect real wages to FALL as declining taxes and rent reduce the cost of living.

                                > For this reason I am not keen on your revised ( downward) land value exemption of £500,000 per house in line with Dave Wetzel's earlier proposal.

                                The amount is not the point. Overcoming homeownerist resistance may require an exemption, which, as I said, should be as small as possible yet still do the political job. I am not familiar enough with UK house and land prices to say how much that might be. I suspect £500K is indeed too generous. It should be possible to calculate an exemption amount that, in combination with UIE+RPE, would enable us to say, "90% of resident homeowners will pay less tax on their homes than they do now with Council Tax." Is Council Tax the only property tax they pay?

                                > Neither can I see the point of any exemption including the UIE that would do anything to inflate house prices.

                                The UIE cannot inflate house prices. It may slightly slow their deflation.

                                > Setting an upward limit at half a million pounds would, in the present corrupt political system, serve as a green light to yet another housing bubble in which £500k becomes the inflated average price.

                                I agree that such an exemption is a last resort, to be used only if UIE+RPE has been tried politically and is not enough to overcome homeownerist resistance. Personally, I think UIE+RPE, plus assistance in finding more productive uses for under-used house locations, plus compassionate deferrals, plus a guarantee that no poor old widow will ever be forced from her home should be enough, without any exemption for resident-owned houses. But is it enough to get Dave Wetzel on board?

                                > All exemptions are just subsidies that inflate house prices.

                                False. An exemption that restores the human right to liberty is not a subsidy, it is justice. And while it may "inflate house prices," that will only be because more is invested in house improvements, and because the economic advantage of living and working in a society where people have rights to liberty is that much greater than living in a society where they don't.

                                > They may go to the "little people" but on aggregate these people become a power bloc that wrecks the economy just as surely as big landowners ( who do not have so many votes).

                                That is a genuine threat. LSR will enable almost everyone to be a landowner, and as we have seen, once they have even a tiny bit of land, they will identify their interests with those of the Duke of Westminster. Being able to keep £5000 more of what they earn is for some reason less appealing to people than getting £500 they haven't earned. I have no solution for that problem.

                                > On a positive note: your comments on land value repayments are very refreshing. CoOperative Individualism lists me as calling for "Social Values Repayments" in Spring 2001

                                Too vague. Even I can't figure out what it means.

                                > but I tried to get the Labour Land Campaign to adopt the term" Land Value Repayment" earlier , without success. It seems to me that the term repayment short circuits the argument "Why do we have to pay this tax?" .All the would be evader could say instead is "Why do I have to repay money that has come my way through the efforts of society?" Shifting the argument onto the repayment level is almost certainly the place to start for land taxers in their internal discussions.

                                Agreed. In particular, we have to be much more assertive and insistent in pointing out that landowners are privileged to pocket others' taxes, that land value is simply the measure of that expected subsidy, and that the rest of us are forced to pay for government TWICE in order that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing. We should be making these points at every opportunity, and not let anyone get away with denying them.

                                -- Roy Langston
                              • David Reed
                                @RL Unprecedented levels of agreement! Which given past disputes is remarkable! As regards the Repayment we are at the point where you are referring to Land
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 20, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  @RL
                                  Unprecedented levels of agreement! Which given past disputes is remarkable!
                                  As regards the Repayment we are at the point where you are referring to Land Subsidy Repayment while I am going back to Land Value Repayment.
                                   I feel the evader(s) would say in the case of LSR "Land Subsidy? What land subsidy? I have n't received any subsidy" while with LVR  ,it would be impossible to say there were n't any land values which have increased mysteriously through no efforts of the owner.
                                  However general usage may determine which version catches on. We'll have to wait and see. As long as the repayment principle gets into play, it doesn't really matter. Though it might help if we spelt out Land Value Repayment or Land Subsidy Repayment as the initials would be confusing unexplained.
                                  (The term homeownerism, which I see you use, started in a small circle centred on Mark Wadsworth's blog. It is more catchy for being explicable at face value: it does not need a lot of explanation, although, as I was the first to use it, I find myself  trying to insist on its original meaning i.e. a system of government which stays in power by keeping house prices high to secure the votes of the homeowning majority.)
                                   I do feel we cannot duck confronting homeownerism head on ,however. It is the prevailing political ideology .We cannot opt out of the weather.
                                  As I said our opposition should be based on the offer of stable house prices and rising wages (or citizens incomes ,dividends etc).
                                  This we disagree on, unfortunately.
                                  kTo: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  From: roy_langston@...
                                  Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:20:15 +0000
                                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Non residential LVT

                                   
                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                                  > All the points you make about government spending being better funded by the national bank (the Canadian Bank seems to have been instituted/nationalised precisely for the purpose of creating money to fund public projects) are more than OK by me. However, it would appear unlikely that in the present fix we would achieve taxation reform and bank reform at much the same time, given that neither necessary reform has made much progress on its own.

                                  That's true. But IMO bank/monetary reform would be much easier to sell, and its demonstrated success would make LSR more politically feasible as well as safer and more economically beneficial to everyone but banksters. Introduction of LSR after banking reform would enable the government to take advantage of the declining production cost base to issue more money in place of taxes to keep nominal prices and wages from dropping.

                                  > So trying to work within the conventional framework and injecting Keynesian demand stimulus into the economy is more politically feasible

                                  Of course it's more politically feasible. Every kind of sop to rich, greedy, privileged takers is more politically feasible than justice. That is exactly the problem, exactly the constraint we have to break free of.

                                  > (but probably already off limits in the UK where the Coalition has convinced the electorate that low interest rates should boost the voters' house prices but nothing else).

                                  And popular acceptance of the notion that that is somehow a good thing is the reason house prices cannot be the object of our attack.

                                  > Obviously such an injection of demand would require inflation safeguarding in the form of land value repayment, should money be hedged into real estate rather than spent on goods and services.

                                  But letting banksters do it wastes a golden opportunity to reduce taxes by instead issuing fiat money to keep prices stable.

                                  > I am surprised that you do not think" house prices per se... are the problem " but are merely a symptom of the systematic injustices that constitute landowning privilege." News from Vancouver is of an imminent house price crash.

                                  It's been "imminent" for over 20 years.

                                  > Since the whole UK political process has been hegemonised by political parties that keep up post-crunch house prices at all costs with no regard for real wages which are worse by some measures than those in crashed- out Spain, I would have thought house prices are the place to start.

                                  No, because house prices are perceived as equivalent to homeowners' financial well-being. We have enough problems without attacking homeownerism head-on.

                                  > The task is to convince enough people they would better off with stable house prices and rising real wages( as the UK had pre abolition of taxes on housing such a Schedule A in 1963).

                                  No, real after-taxes-and-rent wages -- real disposable income -- because we should expect real wages to FALL as declining taxes and rent reduce the cost of living.

                                  > For this reason I am not keen on your revised ( downward) land value exemption of £500,000 per house in line with Dave Wetzel's earlier proposal.

                                  The amount is not the point. Overcoming homeownerist resistance may require an exemption, which, as I said, should be as small as possible yet still do the political job. I am not familiar enough with UK house and land prices to say how much that might be. I suspect £500K is indeed too generous. It should be possible to calculate an exemption amount that, in combination with UIE+RPE, would enable us to say, "90% of resident homeowners will pay less tax on their homes than they do now with Council Tax." Is Council Tax the only property tax they pay?

                                  > Neither can I see the point of any exemption including the UIE that would do anything to inflate house prices.

                                  The UIE cannot inflate house prices. It may slightly slow their deflation.

                                  > Setting an upward limit at half a million pounds would, in the present corrupt political system, serve as a green light to yet another housing bubble in which £500k becomes the inflated average price.

                                  I agree that such an exemption is a last resort, to be used only if UIE+RPE has been tried politically and is not enough to overcome homeownerist resistance. Personally, I think UIE+RPE, plus assistance in finding more productive uses for under-used house locations, plus compassionate deferrals, plus a guarantee that no poor old widow will ever be forced from her home should be enough, without any exemption for resident-owned houses. But is it enough to get Dave Wetzel on board?

                                  > All exemptions are just subsidies that inflate house prices.

                                  False. An exemption that restores the human right to liberty is not a subsidy, it is justice. And while it may "inflate house prices," that will only be because more is invested in house improvements, and because the economic advantage of living and working in a society where people have rights to liberty is that much greater than living in a society where they don't.

                                  > They may go to the "little people" but on aggregate these people become a power bloc that wrecks the economy just as surely as big landowners ( who do not have so many votes).

                                  That is a genuine threat. LSR will enable almost everyone to be a landowner, and as we have seen, once they have even a tiny bit of land, they will identify their interests with those of the Duke of Westminster. Being able to keep £5000 more of what they earn is for some reason less appealing to people than getting £500 they haven't earned. I have no solution for that problem.

                                  > On a positive note: your comments on land value repayments are very refreshing. CoOperative Individualism lists me as calling for "Social Values Repayments" in Spring 2001

                                  Too vague. Even I can't figure out what it means.

                                  > but I tried to get the Labour Land Campaign to adopt the term" Land Value Repayment" earlier , without success. It seems to me that the term repayment short circuits the argument "Why do we have to pay this tax?" .All the would be evader could say instead is "Why do I have to repay money that has come my way through the efforts of society?" Shifting the argument onto the repayment level is almost certainly the place to start for land taxers in their internal discussions.

                                  Agreed. In particular, we have to be much more assertive and insistent in pointing out that landowners are privileged to pocket others' taxes, that land value is simply the measure of that expected subsidy, and that the rest of us are forced to pay for government TWICE in order that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing. We should be making these points at every opportunity, and not let anyone get away with denying them.

                                  -- Roy Langston


                                • roy_langston
                                  ... Actually, I prefer Location Subsidy Repayment. People have a cultural attachment to the idea of owning land : the back garden, the family farm, the poor
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Aug 20, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                                    > As regards the Repayment we are at the point where you are referring to Land Subsidy Repayment while I am going back to Land Value Repayment.

                                    Actually, I prefer Location Subsidy Repayment. People have a cultural attachment to the idea of "owning land": the back garden, the family farm, the poor widow's home, blah, blah, blah. Better to leave the hot-button word alone.

                                    > I feel the evader(s) would say in the case of LSR "Land Subsidy? What land subsidy? I have n't received any subsidy"

                                    Just explain how they have: they hold a location that enables them not only to access government services and infrastructure, but to charge others full market value for such access. Pound on the asset value increase they have been given, which far exceeds any taxes they've paid.

                                    > while with LVR ,it would be impossible to say there were n't any land values which have increased mysteriously through no efforts of the owner.

                                    But lots of evasions are possible: "I already paid for the land value." "You want to punish people who have made intelligent investments." Blah, blah, blah. Better to identify it as a subsidy from the outset, and never let the discussion be shifted off that point.

                                    > Though it might help if we spelt out Land Value Repayment or Land Subsidy Repayment as the initials would be confusing unexplained.

                                    At least until it was well known.

                                    > I do feel we cannot duck confronting homeownerism head on ,however. It is the prevailing political ideology .We cannot opt out of the weather.

                                    I would prefer to defeat it by conceptual jiu-jitsu rather than tackle it head-on.

                                    > As I said our opposition should be based on the offer of stable house prices and rising wages (or citizens incomes ,dividends etc).
                                    > This we disagree on, unfortunately.

                                    IMO we can finesse the goal of "stable house prices" by carefully managing the decline in land values to match increasing improvement value through new construction and renovation. Just use total residential real estate value as the relevant statistic, rather than tracking individual property values. It shouldn't take long for LSR to take 1T worth of housing consisting of 700G in land value and 300G in improvement value and reverse that ratio, at which point we would be well on track for full rent recovery.

                                    -- Roy Langston
                                  • Harry Pollard
                                    I m not sure what you mean by All Dave W s fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT. I am a Georgist and therefore I put forward a Georgist
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Aug 21, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'm not sure what you mean by "All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT."

                                      I am a Georgist and therefore I put forward a Georgist interpretation of things. As such, I do not change my ideas because of political considerations. I am primarily interested in how things should be - not how they can be attained.

                                      I think that Dave is a first class Georgist who knows his stuff. However, he has to handle political considerations as best he can and he is good at it. 

                                      However, in pressing for variations in the basic 100% full collection of Rent, one should be aware of the difficulty of proceeding further even if one gets the "variation".

                                      The effects that are desired are not likely to be seen without full collection or near full collection. So, proper collection of Rent - even if we get the "variation" - will become even more difficult to attain than it is now.

                                      I mostly fear it would become no more than just a better tax than some present exactions and its full potential would never be realized.

                                      Harry

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



                                      To: landcafe@yahoogroups.com
                                      From: dbcreed@...
                                      Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:23:29 +0100
                                      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Subway + Non residential LVT

                                       

                                      "IMO Monetary reform should probably come before LVT". Sure ,that way you could get a lot more money into circulation and make sure it doesn't go into land values by a blocking  Mills' tax " from here on" in Martin Wolf's words. You don't need to enact any particular form of monetary reform: a Keynesian boost would suffice, probably best directed at drastically improving the State pension in the UK .This improvement in income would reconcile my generation of baby boomers' to their property being frozen, but not going down, in value in return for a guarantee of more income to spend in the shops where  the older generation are most likely to spend to the hilt.
                                      All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT are addressed: nobody pays LVT while land prices stay steady amidst increased spending; there is a transfer of property at a not reduced price on inheritance; people's kids get cheap housing before the baby boomers die, a not inconsiderable benefit when you consider the unpaid child minding grandparents do to allow the parents to work off an inflated mortgage; also the poor widow gets a rest. (Churchill complained she was dragged into so many arguments in 1909 she needed the protection of laws against sweated labour.) 
                                      This proposal is a great deal more straightforward than either RL's or DW's and benefits by  addressing the problem of the circulation of money. As has been demonstrated by the strained response to the predicament of Detroit on land café, there are those who believe all you have to do to ensure growth is provide cheap land and all the Opportunity for Liberty or whatever that goes with it. Not good enough. Detroit land is flat out with no signs of the private sector taking advantage of the abundant cheap labour.
                                      You describe as garbage Dave Wetzel's "homestead allowance" (actually term once used in  American bankruptcy to keep   a roof over the family's head) but then extemporise an exemption of the first £I million of a house's land value, twice what Dave W initially proposed before coming round to exempting all residential land (and letting  senior Labour Party figures know this was the Labour Land Campaign's new policy : news to them).Does n't add up.
                                      "Land Subsidy Repayment" is worth considering. I proposed Land Value Repayment many years ago but it never caught on.  "Subsidy" might do the trick.
                                      cTo: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                      From: roy_langston@...
                                      Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:44:10 +0000
                                      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Subway

                                       
                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:

                                      > Full LVT is the best policy.

                                      LVT+UIE is the best policy -- +RPE as a transition measure, if rapid implementation is desired and feasible.

                                      > But the UK's Labour Party have already announced that they will NOT
                                      > introduce LVT if they form the next government in 2015.

                                      Yes, well, we already know they have no ideas other than serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges, as proved by their active complicity in the evisceration of the British middle class for the profit of rich, greedy takers throughout the Blair-Brown era.

                                      > They are following the Liberal Democrats in proposing a Mansion Tax on all homes worth more than £2m.

                                      Which is guaranteed to fail, as already explained.

                                      > They are also proposing that local authorities be given powers to levy a charge on residential land banks (i.e. land with planning permission for
                                      > housing but kept idle and undeveloped for years). This will be easily
                                      > ; avoided by developers and house builders acquiring land but not seeking
                                      > planning permission for housing until ready to build in many years time. (A site opposite where I live has been empty for 25 years).

                                      Right. They know very well their plan will shovel additional billions into the pockets of the parasitic landed aristocracy and gentry, and that is their only real intention.

                                      > There have been 4 Labour Governments since WW2 and each one has proposed a development land tax.

                                      I.e., not LVT but a tax on improvements to make sure the UK's housing stock remains an under-supplied, overpriced shambles.

                                      > Dave Reed may be happy for the next Labour Government to adopt yet another disastrous Development Land Tax

                                      He appears to deny it, and instead favors the little-better "sometime real soon now" Mill tax.

                                      > but I'm looking for a second-best policy.

                                      Why settle for second best, when the best (see above) is superior in every way?

                                      > I'd welcome opinions but am now going to be abroad for a week and unlikely to be able to get online to respond.

                                      IMO those who think LVT+UIE+RPE is not politically salable just haven't thought it through, and have too little confidence in ordinary voters' ability to judge where their interests lie WHEN THEY ARE INFORMED OF THE RELEVANT FACTS.

                                      > Except for a few limited successes at local levels around the world, where
                                      > a small amount of land rent has been collected (with beneficial results)

                                      Japan's LVT-based economic "miracles" in the Meiji and post-war Showa eras were not local or small.

                                      > and despite the correctness of our arguments, those of us advocating an
                                      > Annual Land Value Tax (LVT) to replace taxes on production have totally
                                      > failed to convince the mass of people, academics and political leaders
                                      > around the world of the benefits (including social justice, sound
                                      > economics, addressing climate change,

                                      Careful. We must not hitch our wagon to that fading star.

                                      > the housing problem and the
                                      > elimination of poverty) that arise from the collection of the economic rent
                                      > of land and other natural resources and applied to fund public services.

                                      Probably because like Henry George and most other LVT advocates, you have not understood the absolute, crucial necessity of the UIE, and the RPE as a transition measure.

                                      > It is not the purpose of this paper to postulate on the causes of our
                                      > failure but here in the UK we have had to overcome the power of the
                                      > landowners†™ lobby, the distortion of the teaching of economics and a
                                      > hostile and ill-informed “conservative� press and media. We have also seen
                                      > social changes whereby almost 70% of households are now freeholders of
                                      > their own homes

                                      The actual rate of homeownership is 68%, and that includes strata and leasehold ownership as well as mortgaged "freehold" ownership. Do not be deceived by the blandishments of the landed who pretend that owning improvements implies an identity of interests with those who own the land under them.

                                      > and many others either aspire to purchase freeholds or to inherit
                                      > over-inflated priced homes from their relatives.

                                      First, evil forces its victims to participate in it in self-defense. Then it makes them dependent on it. Finally, it recruits them as its most passionate defenders.

                                      Ordinary homeowners must be informed of the fact that they have been, and are being, robbed, cheated, and forcibly deprived of their rights without just compensation, and then tricked into believing they profit by that crime if they pay even more to buy back some of what has been stolen from them. Have we informed them of that fact? No? Then there is no need to postulate on the causes of our failure, because we already know the cause: not tel ling the truth.

                                      > How can we neutralise the negative forces against us and persuade The British Labour Party
                                      > to adopt an Annual Land Value Tax and then get the British electorate to vote for it?

                                      LVT+UIE+RPE. And monetary reform.

                                      > The Lib/Dems, and now Labour, advocate the Mansion Tax which although not
                                      > ideal will, in practice, mostly fall upon the economic rent of residential
                                      > properties worth over £2m. To be more practical the valuation for Mansion
                                      > Tax should be on land value only and the starting figure should be no more
                                      > than say £500k â€" leaving most residences (£500k plus building value) outside the scope of the Mansion Tax.

                                      Exempt people, not property. That is absolutely crucial.

                                      > The unusual financial difficulties that an incoming Government will face in
                                      > 2015 and the current public outcry on tax avoidance also creates an opening
                                      > for more creative thinking re taxation e.g. The Tax Justice Network, who
                                      > have campaigned for many years for Government to close tax avoidance
                                      > loopholes for business and especially multinationals also advocates LVT and
                                      > there is a growing interest in new alternatives such as The Tobin Tax. The
                                      > Labour front bench has a credibility problem as they intend to fund more
                                      > public infrastructure, to reduce VAT and not to increase income tax or
                                      > other taxes. At the present time Labour is also pledged to continue with
                                      > unpopular cuts to repay the deficit.

                                      While LVT+UIE enables massive cuts to the government spending on "poverty relief" and pensions that just goes into landowners' pockets. Why not start cutting the least justifiable spending?

                                      > Given these contradictory pressures, I believe this opens up to us a unique
                                      > opportunity to propose the principles of LVT to the Labour Movement and
                                      > especially the Labour party’s front bench team.

                                      Agreed. So, why abandon the principles of LVT for an inferior notion that is guaranteed to fail?

                                      > We first need to realistically assess the likelihood of persuading the
                                      > Labour Party to advocate full LVT in the next two years.

                                      Have you tried telling them the truth? I.e., that the policies they currently advocate are 100% guaranteed to fail, while LVT+UIE+RPE plus monetary reform is guaranteed not only to succeed at the polls, but to make Britain Europe's leading economic power and the world's richest country within a single generation?

                                      > 1. Householders (including te nants) worried about having to pay an
                                      > ADDITIONAL tax because they don't see LVT replacing existing taxes as
                                      > being credible as they don't trust politicians to reduce any taxes.

                                      Answer: "We will reduce total taxes as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run in the next election."

                                      The REASON politicians can't reduce taxes under the current system is that all the spending goes to landowners. Once you break free of that compulsory subsidy, reducing taxes becomes possible.

                                      > 2. Economists and others claim you can't value land

                                      That is a fatuous, cretinous lie disproved by every competent real estate appraiser every working day of his life.

                                      Have you tried informing those who make that claim of that fact?

                                      > and a single tax can’t work.

                                      We don't propose a single tax. That's just physiocratic-Georgist moonshine we have long since outgrown. What we propose is the elimination of arbitrary, unjust, destructive and evil taxes, and their replacement with a voluntary, just, and beneficial system of repaying the public treasury for taking publicly created value.

                                      > 3. Homeowners worry about the loss of freehold value

                                      Freehold value is an illusion for all who own only their own residences, be= cause they can't liquidate it: they have to live somewhere. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, try selling it and living like a millionaire on the proceeds. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, how much money do you have left at the end of the month after paying your mortgage, your income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc., etc.? Do you really think that paying 10K/yr in taxes and getting back 5K/yr in land rent so that others can pay little or no taxes and pocket 1M/yr in land rent is a good deal for you??

                                      > (especially those approaching retirement with no or a little pension and scarce savings).

                                      The UIE guarantees they won't need any savings, nor much of a pension, and does so at landlords' expense, not taxpayers' expense.

                                      > 4. People with elderly relatives hoping to inherit their freehold property don't want home values to fall.

                                      Greedy scum. Forget 'em.

                                      > 5. New mortgagees are worried that they will have to continue to pay high repayments on their loans and fork out for LVT as well.

                                      UIE+RPE removes that threat.

                                      > 6. If council tax (CT) is abolished and replaced by LVT then freeholders
                                      > will save on their CT but pay their existing mortgage plus LVT

                                      Minus UIE+RPE, remember. While the past errors of the physiocrats and Georgists may be understandable, nowadays no one could be morally, economically, or politically naive enough to propose LVT without UIE+RPE.

                                      > but their
                                      > neighbour next door will save on their CT pay their current rent but their landlord (the landowner) will pick up the LVT bill.

                                      That sounds right. Why would anyone but a greedy, evil parasite or a lickspittle of greedy, evil parasites want to keep honest working people poor in order to make rich, greedy takers even richer?

                                      > 7. The poor widow, (income poor-asset rich problem) is always being thrown up as an objection to LVT.

                                      The UIE ensures that she suffers no real hardship, and there are many other happy alternatives available to her to use her location more productively, such as taking in lodgers, renting out garden or parking space, renting out daytime space to a daycare, etc. The local Office of Poor Widow Assistance can help her identify the best solution. In extremis, compassionate deferments are available.

                                      The point is, the poor widow's incentive to seek accommodation better suited to her needs and means is a BENEFIT of LVT, enabling the free market's movement of resources into the most productive hands. Never tolerate the despicable fabrications of people who claim to spea k for the poor widow. ASK THE WIDOW HERSELF if she would prefer that her children and grandchildren live their whole lives in poverty and desperation, enslaved by landowners and mortgage lenders, so that she need not suffer the inconvenience of moving to more suitable accommodation (or have one of the grandchildren move in with her, along with their UIE), or if she would rather live in a more suitable place, so that her children and grandchildren could enjoy their human rights to liberty, and live fulfilling lives in a free, just, and prosperous society. And don't let her or anyone else get away with pretending there is any other alternative.

                                      > In the Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value tax,

                                      Which would be microscopic compared to the complexity and cost of administering any other tax of comparable revenue capacity...

                                      > and more importantly, the likelihood of a significant number of losers,

                                      Who very much deserve to lose, but give millions to the Tories...

                                      > with many council tax payers facing higher tax bills and asset rich cash poor groups
                                      > (e.g. pensioners) being particularly hard hit, means that such a proposal is not tenable.

                                      "Asset rich but cash poor" just means, "unproductively hoarding valuable resou rces." The facts of economics and history are going to rub that evil, lying sack of $#!+'s nose in what's "tenable."

                                      > The Government therefore has no intention of introducing a land value tax at this time.�***

                                      Or ever.

                                      > Therefore, I believe we need to recommend an alternative strategy to full
                                      > LVT if we are to see a new Labour government avoid yet another form of development land tax.

                                      And I've provided it: LVT+UIE+RPE. Just tell the truth, and expose the lies. NEVER let despicable, lying scum get away with rationalizing privilege, justifying injustice and excusing evil.

                                      > Whenever I advocate LVT to Labour politicians invariably the questions of
                                      > “the poor widow�, “how will this affect my voters?� “opposition of the
                                      > popular press� and “how do we successfully persuade householders to vote
                                      > for a tax on their own homes?â€� or put more glibly â€" “How do we persuade
                                      > turkeys to vote for Xmas?� arise.

                                      Have you asked ME? I can show you how. I can even show you how to establish a complete, accurately valued cadastre in three months, from a standing start.

                                      > We do have adequate policy answers: there are very few poor people in valuable properties,

                                      More to the point, there are NO poor people WHATEVER, anywhere in the world, or at any time in human history, who OWN valuable properties. We need to get the cretinous and dishonest "income, not wealth, is the measure of wealth," garbage out of people's heads.

                                      > widows can move, take in lodgers or defer payment,

                                      Right. It would be a trivial matter to establish a government office of advisors devoted to helping the poor widows either use their locations more productively or find accommodation better suited to their needs and means.

                                      > taxes on their incomes and trade (VAT) will be reduced.

                                      And they will certainly have their UIEs and RPEs, without which no one in the 21st century with any brains would propose LVT.

                                      > Householders can be given a homestead allowance to reduce the impact of LVT,

                                      No, of course they can't. We have to get that kind of ridiculous, self-defeating garbage out of people's heads once and for all. The only permissible kind of exemption for properties is the RPE, which is a limited and self-extinguishing transition measure. If we ever want to succeed, homestead allowances, broad "occupied residential land" exemptions, etc. have to be taken permanently and unconditionally off the table, becau se they are only ways to guarantee that LVT fails.

                                      > and other taxes on incomes and trade could be cut etc. etc.

                                      No, they WILL be ABOLISHED. That is absolutely crucial. We must be able to show people, including homeowners, comparisons proving they will be far better off with LVT, and then make good on them.

                                      > However, none of these appear to be satisfactory to most voters or Labour politicians

                                      Have you tried identifying the relevant facts clearly, as I do?

                                      > and we have no adequate answer to hostility in the popular press.

                                      Sure we do: identify their lies as such loudly, publicly, and often.

                                      > In recent discussions on the Mansion Tax, the press have described
                                      > deferral (or rollover) of the Mansion Tax as yet another inheritance tax

                                      "That is of course a stupid lie. What stupid lie will the press come up with next? Are estates' payments of the deceased's income tax arrears also 'yet another inheritance tax'? Whose interests is the press serving by constantly telling such stupid lies?"

                                      > and in Scotland, Green Party proposals for LVT were described in newspapers
                                      > as “a tax on your garden�.

                                      "This newspaper has apparently decided it is better for HM government to steal the honest wages of the working poor by taxing them away than to recover the publicly created value of the Duke of Westminster's vast 'back g ardens' for the purposes and benefit of the public that created it."

                                      > In addition, few voters believe politicians
                                      > would use LVT to replace other taxes but it would just become an additional
                                      > burden for voters to pay.

                                      That's easy: "We will reduce total taxation as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election. We will reduce the total tax burden on at least 90% of resident homeowners who own only their own homes by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election."

                                      > Consequently, if we are to be successful in introducing LVT in the next
                                      > seven years, I think it is incumbent upon us to rethink our message and
                                      > offer the Labour front bench a credible form of LVT (credible in as much it
                                      > is acceptable to them but works in harmony and not in opposition to our
                                      > understanding of the theory of economic rent).

                                      It is a mistake to imagine that the Labour front bench got there by being interested in liberty, justice or prosperity. They are servants of privilege, and have no interest in, or understanding of, anything but serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges.

                                      > The abolition of slavery did
                                      > n ot commence with the demand to free all slaves i mmediately but was
                                      > eventually successful following over 100 years of arguments to first outlaw
                                      > the slave trade and then to abolish slavery itself. Equally, the transfer
                                      > of countries from rule by the British Empire to self-determination did not
                                      > happen in one fell swoop but took over two hundred years from 1783 with the
                                      > loss of the United States.

                                      Then maybe it's time to start identifying the facts, as I do.

                                      > Similarly, perhaps we should be seeking an immediate partial land reform that works in harmony with our ultimate concept of LVT

                                      What's wrong with eliminating taxation of improvements and taxing only land value on a revenue-neutral basis? That way, we can establish our abolition-not-addition bona fides.

                                      > rather continuing in the land value tax promotion of the past 130 years,
                                      > arguing only for pure LVT and achieving almost nothing.

                                      I've explained how to fix that.

                                      > This dichotomy is demonstrated by the
                                      > debate on Mansion Tax where the purists on LVT argue we should keep the
                                      > faith and reject a tax on buildings even though the Mansion Tax will in
                                      > practice fall mainly on the rental value of land of these valuable homes.

                                      BUT IT GETS THE INCENTIVES WRONG, which is why it w ill and must FAIL.

                                      > Therefore, I am proposing that at this unique time in UK history we suggest
                                      > to Labour politicians that they promise at the next general election to
                                      > introduce a partial LVT to replace the Business Rates (perhaps called a
                                      > Location Benefit Charge (LBC)?).

                                      How about "Land Subsidy Repayment"? That's how to frame the debate. Don't talk about a tax. Talk about requiring rich, greedy parasites to repay the subsidy they are being given in return for nothing.

                                      > This LBC would consist of an annual Land
                                      > Value Tax (that is a percentage tax on the annual land rental value, based
                                      > on the optimum permitted use of each site) introduced on *ALL* land except
                                      > occupied family homes.

                                      Requiring occupancy is at least a baby step in the right direction: exempting people, not property. The necessity of verifying occupancy implies maintenance and use of records of residential address, so why not just do the right thing from the outset, and give every resident citizen an equal exemption? It would be a trivial matter to set the exemption amount and tax rate at such levels that typical homeowners would pay little or no LSR, which is the putative intention of exempting occupied residences. But the UIE would have enormous additional b enefits, such as reducing housing prices and enabling government to slash the subsidy to landowners that it pays in the form of income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.

                                      > The exemption would apply to all occupied homes
                                      > irrespective of tenure whether it be freehold, tenant, shared ownership,
                                      > leasehold or co-operative ownership.

                                      Again, that is grossly inequitable. The proposed occupied residential land exemption subsidizes those who own the most expensive residential land occupied at the highest per capita land value, at the expense of tenants and those who own the cheapest land and occupy it at the lowest per capita land value.

                                      > Of course, parks, playing fields, and sites below the margin would be zero value for LVT purposes.

                                      What's the tax status of church properties in the UK? Are they tax-free, or taxed at negligible value?

                                      > Poor hill farmers and small market gardeners would
                                      > not pay LVT on their homes and their farm fields are usually situated on
                                      > very low value land and therefore the savings they will make on the other
                                      > tax reductions will probably far exceed their low LVT payments.

                                      Especially as the UIE provides them with free, secure access to enough of that low-value land to make a living.

                                      > The only sites excluded from LVT would be sites with homes that are
                                      > currently occupied and paying council tax. (“Occupation� would allow for
                                      > homes where the family are away on holiday or reasonable periods of work).

                                      I.e., it would be based on residence of record. So if you are going to use that data anyway, why not use it properly, to administer a UIE?

                                      > Council tax would continue to be paid on these homes

                                      Council Tax is an abomination. WHY NOT JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?

                                      > but we need to remember that both Labour and the Lib/Dems are already pledged to introduce
                                      > the new mansion tax on all homes worth over £2m. As stated above the
                                      > valuation for Mansion Tax on homes (land and building) worth over £2m
                                      > should only fall on the land value, for why would we want to penalise
                                      > owners who wish to improve their homes?

                                      Why would we want to subsidize owners who occupy the most land value per resident, as the "occupied residential land exemption" does?

                                      > Residential use represents about 2% of land area in this country, so
                                      > partial LVT would still apply to circa 98% of land.

                                      But well under half by value...

                                      > This approach would mean that LVT as we know it would fall on a ll second
                                      > homes, all empty homes, all under-occupied flats owned by overseas
                                      > investors, all valuable town centre commercial and retail sites,
                                      > out-of-town retail supermarkets and stores (together with their car parks),
                                      > industrial estates, residential/commercial sites with planning permissions
                                      > but yet to be built on and all land banks, empty and underused buildings
                                      > and all brownfield sites.
                                      >
                                      > All land under new homes in the future, built on
                                      > land already paying LVT, would continue to pay LVT and not council tax.

                                      Ah. I was wondering if the necessity of that provision was appreciated.

                                      Of course, that means there would be a scramble to "occupy" all the unoccupied residential sites while the LVT enabling legislation wound its way through Parliament....

                                      > In fact LVT would apply to all the UK’s land area, except occupied homes
                                      > paying council tax at the time LVT was introduced.

                                      Problem: that means that without the RPE, recent buyers of the taxed land (and their mortgage lenders) will be hit hard as the subsidy value they were counting on disappears.

                                      > Admittedly, we would “lose� a portion of LVT income, as much of the 98%
                                      > would be low value land operating at or below the margin and most
                                      > residential sites have a relatively high value.

                                      You would lose about half the revenue obtainable under LVT+UIE+RPE, with the added disadvantage of having to continue shoveling billions in tax revenue into landowners' pockets through income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.

                                      > This approach might even encourage speculative investment away form commercial land but onto
                                      > people’s homes, but this could be mitigated by revaluing Council Tax values
                                      > and adding more higher bands to Council Tax. But I suggest, the approach I
                                      > am suggesting here could be the most political feasible one at this time.

                                      Political feasibility is largely a function of what people have been told, or permitted to know. They have not been told or permitted to know the central facts identified in this message. Start telling them the truth, and liberty, justice and prosperity will become a lot more politically feasible.

                                      > Benefits of Business Rates applied to land values (Location Benefit Charge)
                                      > would be that we will have proven the mechanism for introducing LVT works.
                                      > i.e. the land can be valued, landowners can be identified, LVT can be
                                      > introduced and administered at far lower costs than existing taxes > (remember David Gauke’s letter above where he stated â€" *“In the
                                      > Government’s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value
                                      > tax…………….. means that such a proposal is not tenable�*, we will have proven
                                      > politicians can be trusted to reduce or even abolish taxes on production,
                                      > that with even a partial LVT unemployment falls and wages do rise naturally
                                      > with businesses prospering and seeking more workers.

                                      While real wages (especially after-tax) should rise, don't count on nominal wages rising unless you reform the monetary system to separate money creation from land speculation. IMO monetary reform should probably come before LVT. Otherwise, the deflationary effect of declining costs and lack of debt-money creation could kill the economy despite LVT.

                                      > Remember the last 2010 general election. To help fund the new CrossRail
                                      > deep broad-gauge underground railway line across Greater London, Labour was
                                      > proposing to introduce a Business Rate Supplement on all London businesses
                                      > with a rateable value of over £50,000. If this had applied to homes there
                                      > would have been uproar but as it did not - there was no controversy
                                      > whats oever, and these contributions are being paid today to fund CrossRail.

                                      It's true that homeownerism makes it easier to tax anything but housing; however, as explained above, the UIE+RPE removes ordinary homeowners' excuses for opposing LVT.

                                      > If we propose a non-residential LVT that excludes people’s homes we will
                                      > avoid all the most obvious attacks and especially the rich landowners
                                      > hiding behind the skirts of the “poor widow�. There could be no garden tax
                                      > scare stories and Labour could highlight the unfair land distribution
                                      > represented by aristocrats, such as The Duke of Westminster, who owns and
                                      > controls much of Mayfair and Belgravia.

                                      If that's the aim, then why not just restrict the exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing? It's easy to prove LVT can't be passed on to tenants, and the elimination of Council Tax on improvements will reduce rental prices. Ordinary homeowners know their back gardens aren't worth £1M, and the "poor widows" who have land worth more than £1M under their houses tend to have "Countess," "Duchess," or the like in front of their names. Of course, under this "resident-owned" exemption system, conversion of housing to owner-occupation would not take taxed land off the LVT rolls, just as under the proposed "occupied residential land" exemption.

                                      > When fighting a war a good general picks the most favourable ground on
                                      > which to fight â€" thus leaving his enemy at a disadvantage. Neither does he
                                      > expect to win the battle with a full frontal assault on all dispositions of
                                      > the enemy. A Napoleon or a Wellington uses strategy and tactics to often
                                      > marshall his strongest forces to pick his enemy’s weakest spot on which to
                                      > mobilise maximum force and by breaking through, dishearten and depress the
                                      > enemy’s soldiers’ fighting spirit to win the battle â€" and perhaps
                                      > ultimately the war.

                                      Interesting analogy. Exactly what do you consider the enemy's weakest point? The burden on economic activity posed by current taxes? The fact that land value is the measure of the net subsidy to the landowner, which is paid for by those taxes? Poverty? Inequality? Unemployment? Economic stagnation? Unaffordable housing? Land bubbles and crashes? Budget deficits? The blatant, exorbitant parasitism of the landed aristocracy? The fact that Britons have no right to access opportunity or even to exist in their native country? I would suggest that by declining to tax the value of vast landed estates just because they happen to have tenants living on them, you have already relinquished the high ground, and passed up the opportunity to attack one of the enemy's weakest points.

                                      > We have a battle on our hands, the 2015 general election may only be our
                                      > latest skirmish in a long war that has waged since the 19th Century,

                                      Since the fourth millennium BCE, at least.

                                      > but I believe, with the Location Benefit Charge we can spike the enemies guns,
                                      > win a limited success and go on to achieve 100% LVT in future elections.

                                      Please consider the superior advantages of the two alternative options I have described here: broad LVT+UIE+RPE; and restriction of the residential exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing +UIE+RPE.

                                      > Finally, consider our position in 2020 â€" seven years from now and five years after the next election. > Where do you want us to be?

                                      In a position to DARE other parties to run against the greatest public policy success in recorded history.

                                      > Ideally, we would want full LVT on all sites. But if full LVT is not
                                      > possible, (and past experience of Labour Governments, even with massive
                                      > majorities in 1945 and 1997 suggests it’s not) which would we prefer â€" no
                                      > attempt to collect any land rent (and possibly yet another development land
                                      > tax) - or LVT being collected on circa 98% of the UK’s land area?

                                      IMO you need to determine exactly where the resistance lies, and neutralize it. Whenever anyone in the Labour Party expresses opposition to LVT, do not hesitate to ask them, incredulously, "Why do you demand that we force working people to subsidize the rich, greedy parasites who finance the Tories? Are you a Tory mole or something?"

                                      -- Roy Langston



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