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

Re: LT: RE: Get thru?

Expand Messages
  • Roy Langston
    ... And see it, in all likelihood, taken over by covert landowner moles and turned into another anti-geoist disinformation front like the Lincoln Institute? It
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave Wetzel wrote:

      >In the 1930s, Sir Richard Acland inherited half of
      >Somerset in the UK. Because he opposed the private
      >ownership of land he gave it all to the British
      >Government. Would he not have served his ideals
      >better if he'd created an LVT supporting foundation

      And see it, in all likelihood, taken over by covert
      landowner moles and turned into another anti-geoist
      disinformation front like the Lincoln Institute?

      It would be far better if he had created a
      demonstration land rent recovery community that
      devoted half its revenue to buying up and incorporating
      contiguous land parcels, a quarter to investments in
      services and infrastructure, an eighth to a flat per
      capita personal land rent exemption for residents, a
      sixteenth to support for geoist economists, journalists,
      philosophers, etc. and the remaining sixteenth to
      geoists' political campaigns.

      We would have been living in a geoist world, by now.

      -- Roy Langston



      __________________________________________________________________
      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
    • Scott Bergeson
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: LT: RE: Get thru? Quoting Roy Langston on Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:57:26 -0400 (EDT): ___Roy___ It would be far better if [in the 1930s, Sir
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 20, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: LT: RE: Get thru?

        Quoting Roy Langston on Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:57:26 -0400 (EDT):

        ___Roy___
        It would be far better if [in the 1930s, Sir Richard
        Acland, having inherited half of Somerset in the UK] had
        created a demonstration land rent recovery community that
        devoted half its revenue to buying up and incorporating
        contiguous land parcels, a quarter to investments in
        services and infrastructure, an eighth to a flat per
        capita personal land rent exemption for residents, a
        sixteenth to support for geoist economists, journalists,
        philosophers, etc. and the remaining sixteenth to
        geoists' political campaigns.

        We would have been living in a geoist world, by now.
        -----

        Would devoting half the Rent revenue to services
        and infrastructure have sufficed? (Note: until
        accomplishment of this goal approached, the revenue
        would probably be closer to "collectible" or "rack-rent"
        proportions than to an ideal full land availability
        lower rent value; i.e., approximately what Rent
        actually has been in such areas from the 1930 to
        present or a geoist world, which ever came first.
        OTOH, if this Somerset is a central area, perhaps
        higher yet.)

        Scott
      • Roy Langston
        ... I suggested a quarter. Remember, the people in the land rent community would still have been liable for all their legal taxes, and would presumably still
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 21, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Scott Bergeson wrote:

          >Quoting Roy Langston on Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:57:26 -0400
          (EDT):

          >___Roy___
          >It would be far better if [in the 1930s, Sir Richard
          >Acland, having inherited half of Somerset in the UK]
          >had created a demonstration land rent recovery
          >community that devoted half its revenue to buying up
          >and incorporating contiguous land parcels, a quarter
          >to investments in services and infrastructure, an
          >eighth to a flat per capita personal land rent
          >exemption for residents, a sixteenth to support for
          >geoist economists, journalists, philosophers, etc.
          >and the remaining sixteenth to geoists' political
          >campaigns.

          >We would have been living in a geoist world, by now.
          -----

          >Would devoting half the Rent revenue to services
          >and infrastructure have sufficed?

          I suggested a quarter. Remember, the people in the land
          rent community would still have been liable for all their
          legal taxes, and would presumably still be getting all the
          same government services and infrastructure as everyone
          else. Their landlord would just be more enlightened.

          >(Note: until
          >accomplishment of this goal approached, the revenue
          >would probably be closer to "collectible" or
          >"rack-rent" proportions than to an ideal full land
          >availability lower rent value; i.e., approximately
          >what Rent actually has been in such areas from the
          >1930 to present or a geoist world, which ever came
          >first.

          IMO it is difficult to say if rents would be higher, lower,
          or about the same in such a community, especially over the
          long term, as it would not be a true single tax community.
          However, the data on rents from high property tax and low
          property tax states in the USA seem to indicate lower rents
          would prevail.

          -- Roy Langston


          __________________________________________________________________
          Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.