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

RE: FT article today calls for tax on land

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    ... From: John Allen [mailto:ciob.editor@pop3.poptel.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:01 PM To: Wetzel Dave Subject: RE: FT article today calls for
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 20, 2005

      -----Original Message-----
      From: John Allen [mailto:ciob.editor@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:01 PM
      To: Wetzel Dave
      Subject: RE: FT article today calls for tax on land

       

                  Dave:  Thanks for this. It is good to see questions being raised about the damaging

                  effect of levying taxes on new investment, on employment of labour and purchase

                  of goods, all of them inflationary. By contrast your ideas on tax reform would reduce

                  inflation because as the classical economists said, taxes on rent in no way enter into price.

       

                  You may like to see the 'curtain-raiser' commentary I have written for CIOB International

                  about the Land Taxation conference being held on October 12th, at which I understand

                  you will be a contributor.  This appears under the Latest News heading at

       

                  http://www.ciobinternational.org

       

                  Kind regards, John

       

                  John D. Allen, Editor, CIOB International News

                 

                  Telephone:  020 7435 5988

       

                  E-mail:  ciob.editor@...

       

       

                 

       

       



      ***********************************************************************************
      The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

      If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
      ***********************************************************************************
    • Rana Roy
      Dave/Carole, Thanks for this. The Canadian study cited in the article looks interesting. However: it is misleading to entitle the message: FT article today
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 20, 2005
        Dave/Carole,
         
        Thanks for this.  The Canadian study cited in the article looks interesting.
         
        However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article today calls for tax on land".  Just as misleading as, say, "FT article today calls for tax on consumption".  Both are mentioned in the same breath - and by way of passing - in a single sentence.  I would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".
         
        I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.  After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we would witness a serious debate on tax, beginning with a serious response to the excellent articles in FT by Sam Brittan and Martin Wolf in the pre-election period.  But neither the media debate nor the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds for optimism.
         
        First of all, September began with the orchestrated nonsense on the flat tax.  Martin Wolf did an excellent piece on this on the 9th of September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense.  I am delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish - the flat tax idea damaged them seriously - but all this is swamping precious time and space.
         
        Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the public space that bodes ill for policy development.  Some of the key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a purpose - Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian study provides a perfect example.  Thus, Sweden, with a "middling" corporate tax rate, imposes one of the lowest effective tax rates on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances, in the process facilitating a faster pace of innovation.  But here?  Doing my tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by half the depreciation allowance on IT.  Apparently, nobody had noticed.
         
        Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the next election.  This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review.  Now I am no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty and inefficient property tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax has been instituted.  Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes.  That such a campaign should prove partially successful strikes me as a deeply worrying development.
         
        I remain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events" will generate a rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents - events in the energy market, housing market and the wider macro-economy.  But if September is any guide, the current "tax debate" is leading nowhere.
         
        Regards.
         
        Rana
         
        -------
         
        Dr. Rana Roy
        5 Bryanston Square
        London W1H 2DH
        United Kingdom
        Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
        E-mail: rana.roy@...              
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM
        Subject: RE: FT article today calls for tax on land

        I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our attention to today's FT.

         

         Dave
        Dave Wetzel;

        Chair PLRG

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM
        To: Wetzel Dave
        Subject: FT article today

         

        Dear Dave

        Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the sentence:

         "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and immobile assets such as land"

         CD Howe Institute, Toronto

         I thought this was a useful piece of ammunition.

         

        Best

        Carole

         

         Carole Tongue

        Associate Director

        Sovereign Strategy

        60 Trafalgar Square

        London , WC2N 5DS

         

        +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel

        +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax

        +44 (0) 797 492 5822 - Mobile

         

        carole.tongue@... 

        www.sovereignstrategy.com

         

         

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

         



        ***********************************************************************************
        The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

        If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
        ***********************************************************************************
      • John Havercroft
        Rana, I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you think. Apart from the sin taxes and “user charges” things are pretty flat as far as
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 21, 2005

          Rana,

           

          I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you think.  Apart from the sin taxes and “user charges” things are pretty flat as far as the major tax farms are concerned.

           

          We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions.  We have Corporation tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read voter) lower earners and we have income tax/national insurance.  On PAYE if, like me, you believe that taxes on income are income taxes the picture looks much flatter.  In my view the income tax is the amount that is paid to the government out of every pound it costs an employer and I am attaching my chart that presents the figures on this basis.

           

          Apart from a small anomaly where employees’ NI ends before higher rate tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small entry rate income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and 48%.

           

          Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the non-employed is at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity to split the charge between payers and disguise it though for “Coupon Clippers” there is a higher total tax burden on the original income, which suffers Corporation Tax as well as personal tax.

           

          The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to the employee of putting another £1 in the employee’s pocket that are interesting in other discussions.

           

          Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate and lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead it.  But whose fault is that!

           

          Regards

           

          John H

           

           

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Rana Roy
          Sent: 20 September 2005 15:36
          To: Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
          Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

           

          Dave/Carole,

           

          Thanks for this.  The Canadian study cited in the article looks interesting.

           

          However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article today calls for tax on land".  Just as misleading as, say, "FT article today calls for tax on consumption".  Both are mentioned in the same breath - and by way of passing - in a single sentence.  I would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".

           

          I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.  After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we would witness a serious debate on tax, beginning with a serious response to the excellent articles in FT by Sam Brittan and Martin Wolf in the pre-election period.  But neither the media debate nor the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds for optimism.

           

          First of all, September began with the orchestrated nonsense on the flat tax.  Martin Wolf did an excellent piece on this on the 9th of September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense.  I am delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish - the flat tax idea damaged them seriously - but all this is swamping precious time and space.

           

          Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the public space that bodes ill for policy development.  Some of the key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a purpose - Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian study provides a perfect example.  Thus, Sweden, with a "middling" corporate tax rate, imposes one of the lowest effective tax rates on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances, in the process facilitating a faster pace of innovation.  But here?  Doing my tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by half the depreciation allowance on IT.  Apparently, nobody had noticed.

           

          Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the next election.  This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review.  Now I am no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty and inefficient property tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax has been instituted.  Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes.  That such a campaign should prove partially successful strikes me as a deeply worrying development.

           

          I remain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events" will generate a rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents - events in the energy market, housing market and the wider macro-economy.  But if September is any guide, the current "tax debate" is leading nowhere.

           

          Regards.

           

          Rana

           

          -------

           

          Dr. Rana Roy
          5 Bryanston Square
          London W1H 2DH
          United Kingdom
          Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
          E-mail: rana.roy@...              

          ----- Original Message -----

          From:
          Wetzel Dave

          To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'

          Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'

          Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM

          Subject: RE: FT article today calls for tax on land

           

          I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our attention to today's FT.

           

           Dave
          Dave Wetzel;

          Chair PLRG

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM
          To: Wetzel Dave
          Subject: FT article today

           

          Dear Dave

          Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the sentence:

           "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and immobile assets such as land"

           CD Howe Institute, Toronto

           I thought this was a useful piece of ammunition.

           

          Best

          Carole

           

           Carole Tongue

          Associate Director

          Sovereign Strategy

          60 Trafalgar Square

          London , WC2N 5DS

           

          +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel

          +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax

          +44 (0) 797 492 5822 - Mobile

           

          carole.tongue@... 

          www.sovereignstrategy.com

           

           

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

           



          ***********************************************************************************
          The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

          If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

          This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
          ***********************************************************************************


        • Rana Roy
          John, Agreed! Martin s point - and mine - was precisely this: given the UK tax system as it stands, there is little to be gained by flattening it out further.
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 21, 2005
            John,
             
            Agreed!  Martin's point - and mine - was precisely this: given the UK tax system as it stands, there is little to be gained by flattening it out further.  But there would be losses in eliminating all exemptions as the flat-taxers propose: some of these exemptions have an important contribution to make in correcting systemic deficits in pension savings, technical innovations, and so on.  Most importantly, the entire debate around the flat tax is a distraction from the key issue: the need to maximise the tax-take from economic rents and externalities and minimise the tax-take from capital, labour and final consumption.
             
            Regards.  
             
            Rana
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:14 PM
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

            Rana,

             

            I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you think.  Apart from the sin taxes and “user charges” things are pretty flat as far as the major tax farms are concerned.

             

            We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions.  We have Corporation tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read voter) lower earners and we have income tax/national insurance.  On PAYE if, like me, you believe that taxes on income are income taxes the picture looks much flatter.  In my view the income tax is the amount that is paid to the government out of every pound it costs an employer and I am attaching my chart that presents the figures on this basis.

             

            Apart from a small anomaly where employees’ NI ends before higher rate tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small entry rate income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and 48%.

             

            Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the non-employed is at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity to split the charge between payers and disguise it though for “Coupon Clippers” there is a higher total tax burden on the original income, which suffers Corporation Tax as well as personal tax.

             

            The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to the employee of putting another £1 in the employee’s pocket that are interesting in other discussions.

             

            Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate and lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead it.  But whose fault is that!

             

            Regards

             

            John H

             

             

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Rana Roy
            Sent: 20 September 2005 15:36
            To: Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
            Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
            Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

             

            Dave/Carole,

             

            Thanks for this.  The Canadian study cited in the article looks interesting.

             

            However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article today calls for tax on land".  Just as misleading as, say, "FT article today calls for tax on consumption".  Both are mentioned in the same breath - and by way of passing - in a single sentence.  I would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".

             

            I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.  After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we would witness a serious debate on tax, beginning with a serious response to the excellent articles in FT by Sam Brittan and Martin Wolf in the pre-election period.  But neither the media debate nor the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds for optimism.

             

            First of all, September began with the orchestrated nonsense on the flat tax.  Martin Wolf did an excellent piece on this on the 9th of September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense.  I am delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish - the flat tax idea damaged them seriously - but all this is swamping precious time and space.

             

            Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the public space that bodes ill for policy development.  Some of the key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a purpose - Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian study provides a perfect example.  Thus, Sweden, with a "middling" corporate tax rate, imposes one of the lowest effective tax rates on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances, in the process facilitating a faster pace of innovation.  But here?  Doing my tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by half the depreciation allowance on IT.  Apparently, nobody had noticed.

             

            Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the next election.  This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review.  Now I am no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty and inefficient property tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax has been instituted.  Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes.  That such a campaign should prove partially successful strikes me as a deeply worrying development.

             

            I remain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events" will generate a rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents - events in the energy market, housing market and the wider macro-economy.  But if September is any guide, the current "tax debate" is leading nowhere.

             

            Regards.

             

            Rana

             

            -------

             

            Dr. Rana Roy
            5 Bryanston Square
            London W1H 2DH
            United Kingdom
            Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
            E-mail: rana.roy@...              

            ----- Original Message -----

            From:
            Wetzel Dave

            To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'

            Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'

            Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM

            Subject: RE: FT article today calls for tax on land

             

            I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our attention to today's FT.

             

             Dave
            Dave Wetzel;

            Chair PLRG

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM
            To: Wetzel Dave
            Subject: FT article today

             

            Dear Dave

            Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the sentence:

             "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and immobile assets such as land"

             CD Howe Institute, Toronto

             I thought this was a useful piece of ammunition.

             

            Best

            Carole

             

             Carole Tongue

            Associate Director

            Sovereign Strategy

            60 Trafalgar Square

            London , WC2N 5DS

             

            +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel

            +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax

            +44 (0) 797 492 5822 - Mobile

             

            carole.tongue@... 

            www.sovereignstrategy.com

             

             

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

             



            ***********************************************************************************
            The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

            If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

            This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
            ***********************************************************************************


          • John Havercroft
            Rana, Yes but for me the attraction of the flat tax to me is the opportunity to sweep away the vast quantities of almost unintelligible verbiage that surrounds
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 21, 2005

              Rana,

               

              Yes but for me the attraction of the flat tax to me is the opportunity to sweep away the vast quantities of almost unintelligible verbiage that surrounds exemptions, allowances and incentives all over the tax system - enabling a rational view to be taken of the (very) few fiscal incentives which may be useful.  However, we wonder off into a different debate: the concerted effort of this group should be to get a (any) version of an annual Land Tax onto the statute book.  It is a much easier to change the regulations than it is to establish the base.

               

              John H

               

               

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Rana Roy [mailto:rana.roy@...]
              Sent: 21 September 2005 15:22
              To: John Havercroft; Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
              Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

               

              John,

               

              Agreed!  Martin's point - and mine - was precisely this: given the UK tax system as it stands, there is little to be gained by flattening it out further.  But there would be losses in eliminating all exemptions as the flat-taxers propose: some of these exemptions have an important contribution to make in correcting systemic deficits in pension savings, technical innovations, and so on.  Most importantly, the entire debate around the flat tax is a distraction from the key issue: the need to maximise the tax-take from economic rents and externalities and minimise the tax-take from capital, labour and final consumption.

               

              Regards.  

               

              Rana

              ----- Original Message -----

              From:
              John Havercroft

              To: Rana Roy ; Wetzel Dave ; 'Land Café ( lc1)'

              Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'

              Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:14 PM

              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

               

              Rana,

               

              I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you think.  Apart from the sin taxes and “user charges” things are pretty flat as far as the major tax farms are concerned.

               

              We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions.  We have Corporation tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read voter) lower earners and we have income tax/national insurance.  On PAYE if, like me, you believe that taxes on income are income taxes the picture looks much flatter.  In my view the income tax is the amount that is paid to the government out of every pound it costs an employer and I am attaching my chart that presents the figures on this basis.

               

              Apart from a small anomaly where employees’ NI ends before higher rate tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small entry rate income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and 48%.

               

              Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the non-employed is at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity to split the charge between payers and disguise it though for “Coupon Clippers” there is a higher total tax burden on the original income, which suffers Corporation Tax as well as personal tax.

               

              The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to the employee of putting another £1 in the employee’s pocket that are interesting in other discussions.

               

              Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate and lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead it.  But whose fault is that!

               

              Regards

               

              John H

               

               

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Rana Roy
              Sent: 20 September 2005 15:36
              To: Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
              Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

               

              Dave/Carole,

               

              Thanks for this.  The Canadian study cited in the article looks interesting.

               

              However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article today calls for tax on land".  Just as misleading as, say, "FT article today calls for tax on consumption".  Both are mentioned in the same breath - and by way of passing - in a single sentence.  I would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".

               

              I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.  After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we would witness a serious debate on tax, beginning with a serious response to the excellent articles in FT by Sam Brittan and Martin Wolf in the pre-election period.  But neither the media debate nor the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds for optimism.

               

              First of all, September began with the orchestrated nonsense on the flat tax.  Martin Wolf did an excellent piece on this on the 9th of September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense.  I am delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish - the flat tax idea damaged them seriously - but all this is swamping precious time and space.

               

              Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the public space that bodes ill for policy development.  Some of the key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a purpose - Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian study provides a perfect example.  Thus, Sweden, with a "middling" corporate tax rate, imposes one of the lowest effective tax rates on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances, in the process facilitating a faster pace of innovation.  But here?  Doing my tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by half the depreciation allowance on IT.  Apparently, nobody had noticed.

               

              Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the next election.  This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review.  Now I am no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty and inefficient property tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax has been instituted.  Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes.  That such a campaign should prove partially successful strikes me as a deeply worrying development.

               

              I remain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events" will generate a rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents - events in the energy market, housing market and the wider macro-economy.  But if September is any guide, the current "tax debate" is leading nowhere.

               

              Regards.

               

              Rana

               

              -------

               

              Dr. Rana Roy
              5 Bryanston Square
              London W1H 2DH
              United Kingdom
              Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
              E-mail: rana.roy@...              

              ----- Original Message -----

               

              To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'

              Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'

              Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM

              Subject: RE: FT article today calls for tax on land

               

              I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our attention to today's FT.

               

               Dave
              Dave Wetzel;

              Chair PLRG

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM
              To: Wetzel Dave
              Subject: FT article today

               

              Dear Dave

              Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the sentence:

               "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and immobile assets such as land"

               CD Howe Institute, Toronto

               I thought this was a useful piece of ammunition.

               

              Best

              Carole

               

               Carole Tongue

              Associate Director

              Sovereign Strategy

              60 Trafalgar Square

              London , WC2N 5DS

               

              +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel

              +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax

              +44 (0) 797 492 5822 - Mobile

               

              carole.tongue@... 

              www.sovereignstrategy.com

               

               

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

               



              ***********************************************************************************
              The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

              If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

              This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
              ***********************************************************************************


            • Dan Sullivan
              The reason why there are so many exemptions, allowances and incentives is that income taxes are fundamentally destructive. Eliminating the work-arounds will
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 21, 2005
                The reason why there are so many exemptions, allowances and
                incentives is that income taxes are fundamentally destructive.
                Eliminating the work-arounds will only make it more destructive. The
                way to get rid of all those aberrations in the income tax is to get rid of
                the income tax itself by replacing it with flat taxes on the value of
                privileges: royalties on coal, oil gas and minerals, full annual charges
                for airport landing slots and harbor docking rights, charges on the
                generation of pollution, full annual charges for licenses of all sorts,
                from taxi permits to banking privileges, and, most of all, a substantial
                charge on the rental value of land.

                Do this and you can have an income tax of zero percent. It's hard to
                get flatter than that.

                -ds

                On 21 Sep 2005 at 15:33, John Havercroft wrote:

                >
                > Rana,
                >
                > Yes but for me the attraction of the flat tax to me is the opportunity
                > to sweep away the vast quantities of almost unintelligible verbiage
                > that surrounds exemptions, allowances and incentives all over the tax
                > system - enabling a rational view to be taken of the (very) few fiscal
                > incentives which may be useful. However, we wonder off into a
                > different debate: the concerted effort of this group should be to get
                > a (any) version of an annual Land Tax onto the statute book. It is a
                > much easier to change the regulations than it is to establish the
                > base.
                >
                > John H
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Rana Roy [mailto:rana.roy@...]
                > Sent: 21 September 2005 15:22
                > To: John Havercroft; Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                > Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land
                >
                > John,
                >
                > Agreed!Martin's point - and mine - was precisely this: given the
                > UK tax system as it stands, there is little to be gained by
                > flattening it out further. But there would be losses in
                > eliminating all exemptions as the flat-taxers propose: some of
                > these exemptions have an important contribution to make in
                > correcting systemic deficits in pension savings, technical
                > innovations, and so on.Most importantly, the entire debate around
                > the flat tax is a distraction from the key issue: the need to
                > maximise the tax-take from economic rents and externalities and
                > minimise the tax-take from capital, labour and final consumption.
                >
                > Regards.
                >
                > Rana
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: John Havercroft
                > To: Rana Roy ; Wetzel Dave ; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                > Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:14 PM Subject: RE:
                > [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land
                >
                > Rana,
                >
                > I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you
                > think. Apart from the sin taxes and œuser charges things are
                > pretty flat as far as the major tax farms are concerned.
                >
                > We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions. We have
                > Corporation tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read
                > voter) lower earners and we have income tax/national insurance. On
                > PAYE if, like me, you believe that taxes on income are income
                > taxes the picture looks much flatter. In my view the income tax is
                > the amount that is paid to the government out of every pound it
                > costs an employer and I am attaching my chart that presents the
                > figures on this basis.
                >
                > Apart from a small anomaly where employees™ NI ends before higher
                > rate tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small
                > entry rate income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and
                > 48%.
                >
                > Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the
                > non-employed is at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity
                > to split the charge between payers and disguise it though for
                > œCoupon Clippers there is a higher total tax burden on the
                > original income, which suffers Corporation Tax as well as personal
                > tax.
                >
                > The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to
                > the employee of putting another £1 in the employee™s pocket that
                > are interesting in other discussions.
                >
                > Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate
                > and lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead
                > it. But whose fault is that!
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > John H
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On
                > Behalf Of Rana Roy Sent: 20 September 2005 15:36 To: Wetzel Dave;
                > 'Land Café ( lc1)' Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land
                > Research Trust)' Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls
                > for tax on land
                >
                > Dave/Carole,
                >
                > Thanks for this. The Canadian study cited in the article looks
                > interesting.
                >
                > However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article
                > today calls for tax on land".Just as misleading as, say, "FT
                > article today calls for tax on consumption". Both are mentioned in
                > the same breath - andby way of passing - in a single sentence. I
                > would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in
                > its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".
                >
                > I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.
                > After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we
                > wouldwitness a serious debate on tax, beginning with aserious
                > response to the excellent articles in FTbySam Brittan and Martin
                > Wolf in the pre-election period. But neither the media debate nor
                > the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds
                > for optimism.
                >
                > First of all, September began withthe orchestrated nonsense on the
                > flat tax. Martin Wolfdid an excellentpiece on this on the 9th of
                > September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we
                > should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense. I am
                > delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish -
                > theflat taxidea damaged them seriously -but all this is swamping
                > precious time and space.
                >
                > Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed
                > selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the
                > public space that bodes ill for policy development. Some of the
                > key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a
                > purpose -Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian
                > studyprovides a perfect example. Thus, Sweden, with a "middling"
                > corporate tax rate, imposesone of the lowest effective tax rates
                > on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances,in the
                > processfacilitating a faster pace of innovation.But here? Doing my
                > tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by
                > half the depreciation allowance on IT. Apparently, nobody had
                > noticed.
                >
                > Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has
                > pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the
                > next election. This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be
                > passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review. Now I am
                > no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty andinefficient property
                > tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax
                > has been instituted. Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the
                > recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the
                > revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary
                > principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and
                > gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes. That such
                > acampaign should prove partially successfulstrikes me as a deeply
                > worrying development.
                >
                > Iremain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events"will generate a
                > rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents -
                > events in the energy market, housing market and the wider
                > macro-economy. But if September isany guide, the current "tax
                > debate"is leading nowhere.
                >
                > Regards.
                >
                > Rana
                >
                > -------
                >
                > Dr. Rana Roy
                > 5 Bryanston Square
                > London W1H 2DH
                > United Kingdom
                > Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
                > E-mail: rana.roy@...
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                >
                > From: Wetzel Dave
                >
                >
                > To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                > Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: RE: FT article
                > today calls for tax on land
                >
                > I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group
                > member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our
                > attention to today's FT.
                >
                > Dave
                > Dave Wetzel;
                > Chair PLRG
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
                > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM To: Wetzel Dave
                > Subject: FT article today
                >
                > Dear Dave
                > Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told
                > to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the
                > sentence: "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates
                > are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and
                > immobile assets such as land" CD Howe Institute, Toronto I thought
                > this was a useful piece of ammunition.
                >
                > Best
                > Carole
                >
                > Carole Tongue
                > Associate Director
                > Sovereign Strategy
                > 60 Trafalgar Square
                > London, WC2N 5DS
                >
                > +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel
                > +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax
                > +44 (0)797 492 5822- Mobile
                >
                > carole.tongue@...
                > www.sovereignstrategy.com
                >
                >
                > ******************************************************************
                > **************************************
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > *************************************************************
                > ********************** The contents of the e-mail and any
                > transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use
                > of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport
                > for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the
                > quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
                > transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be
                > advised that you have received this email in error and that any
                > use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
                > is strictly prohibited.
                >
                > If you have received this email in error please notify
                > postmaster@....
                >
                > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
                > for the presence of computer viruses.
                > *************************************************************
                > **********************
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                > To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
                >
                >
                >
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                > * Visit your group "LandCafe" on the web.
                >
                > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                > Service.
                >
                >
                >
              • John Havercroft
                Yes - When - How? JH ... From: Dan Sullivan [mailto:pimann@pobox.com] Sent: 21 September 2005 16:09 To: Rana Roy; John Havercroft; Wetzel Dave; Land Café (
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 21, 2005
                  Yes - When - How?

                  JH

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Dan Sullivan [mailto:pimann@...]
                  Sent: 21 September 2005 16:09
                  To: Rana Roy; John Havercroft; Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1) '
                  Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

                  The reason why there are so many exemptions, allowances and
                  incentives is that income taxes are fundamentally destructive.
                  Eliminating the work-arounds will only make it more destructive. The
                  way to get rid of all those aberrations in the income tax is to get rid of
                  the income tax itself by replacing it with flat taxes on the value of
                  privileges: royalties on coal, oil gas and minerals, full annual charges
                  for airport landing slots and harbor docking rights, charges on the
                  generation of pollution, full annual charges for licenses of all sorts,
                  from taxi permits to banking privileges, and, most of all, a substantial
                  charge on the rental value of land.

                  Do this and you can have an income tax of zero percent. It's hard to
                  get flatter than that.

                  -ds

                  On 21 Sep 2005 at 15:33, John Havercroft wrote:

                  >
                  > Rana,
                  >
                  > Yes but for me the attraction of the flat tax to me is the opportunity
                  > to sweep away the vast quantities of almost unintelligible verbiage
                  > that surrounds exemptions, allowances and incentives all over the tax
                  > system - enabling a rational view to be taken of the (very) few fiscal
                  > incentives which may be useful. However, we wonder off into a
                  > different debate: the concerted effort of this group should be to get
                  > a (any) version of an annual Land Tax onto the statute book. It is a
                  > much easier to change the regulations than it is to establish the
                  > base.
                  >
                  > John H
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Rana Roy [mailto:rana.roy@...]
                  > Sent: 21 September 2005 15:22
                  > To: John Havercroft; Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                  > Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                  > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land
                  >
                  > John,
                  >
                  > Agreed!Martin's point - and mine - was precisely this: given the
                  > UK tax system as it stands, there is little to be gained by
                  > flattening it out further. But there would be losses in
                  > eliminating all exemptions as the flat-taxers propose: some of
                  > these exemptions have an important contribution to make in
                  > correcting systemic deficits in pension savings, technical
                  > innovations, and so on.Most importantly, the entire debate around
                  > the flat tax is a distraction from the key issue: the need to
                  > maximise the tax-take from economic rents and externalities and
                  > minimise the tax-take from capital, labour and final consumption.
                  >
                  > Regards.
                  >
                  > Rana
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: John Havercroft
                  > To: Rana Roy ; Wetzel Dave ; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                  > Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                  > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:14 PM Subject: RE:
                  > [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land
                  >
                  > Rana,
                  >
                  > I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you
                  > think. Apart from the sin taxes and œuser charges things are
                  > pretty flat as far as the major tax farms are concerned.
                  >
                  > We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions. We have
                  > Corporation tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read
                  > voter) lower earners and we have income tax/national insurance. On
                  > PAYE if, like me, you believe that taxes on income are income
                  > taxes the picture looks much flatter. In my view the income tax is
                  > the amount that is paid to the government out of every pound it
                  > costs an employer and I am attaching my chart that presents the
                  > figures on this basis.
                  >
                  > Apart from a small anomaly where employees(tm) NI ends before higher
                  > rate tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small
                  > entry rate income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and
                  > 48%.
                  >
                  > Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the
                  > non-employed is at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity
                  > to split the charge between payers and disguise it though for
                  > œCoupon Clippers there is a higher total tax burden on the
                  > original income, which suffers Corporation Tax as well as personal
                  > tax.
                  >
                  > The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to
                  > the employee of putting another £1 in the employee(tm)s pocket that
                  > are interesting in other discussions.
                  >
                  > Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate
                  > and lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead
                  > it. But whose fault is that!
                  >
                  > Regards
                  >
                  > John H
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On
                  > Behalf Of Rana Roy Sent: 20 September 2005 15:36 To: Wetzel Dave;
                  > 'Land Café ( lc1)' Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land
                  > Research Trust)' Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls
                  > for tax on land
                  >
                  > Dave/Carole,
                  >
                  > Thanks for this. The Canadian study cited in the article looks
                  > interesting.
                  >
                  > However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article
                  > today calls for tax on land".Just as misleading as, say, "FT
                  > article today calls for tax on consumption". Both are mentioned in
                  > the same breath - andby way of passing - in a single sentence. I
                  > would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in
                  > its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".
                  >
                  > I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.
                  > After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we
                  > wouldwitness a serious debate on tax, beginning with aserious
                  > response to the excellent articles in FTbySam Brittan and Martin
                  > Wolf in the pre-election period. But neither the media debate nor
                  > the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds
                  > for optimism.
                  >
                  > First of all, September began withthe orchestrated nonsense on the
                  > flat tax. Martin Wolfdid an excellentpiece on this on the 9th of
                  > September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we
                  > should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense. I am
                  > delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish -
                  > theflat taxidea damaged them seriously -but all this is swamping
                  > precious time and space.
                  >
                  > Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed
                  > selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the
                  > public space that bodes ill for policy development. Some of the
                  > key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a
                  > purpose -Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian
                  > studyprovides a perfect example. Thus, Sweden, with a "middling"
                  > corporate tax rate, imposesone of the lowest effective tax rates
                  > on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances,in the
                  > processfacilitating a faster pace of innovation.But here? Doing my
                  > tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by
                  > half the depreciation allowance on IT. Apparently, nobody had
                  > noticed.
                  >
                  > Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has
                  > pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the
                  > next election. This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be
                  > passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review. Now I am
                  > no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty andinefficient property
                  > tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax
                  > has been instituted. Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the
                  > recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the
                  > revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary
                  > principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and
                  > gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes. That such
                  > acampaign should prove partially successfulstrikes me as a deeply
                  > worrying development.
                  >
                  > Iremain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events"will generate a
                  > rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents -
                  > events in the energy market, housing market and the wider
                  > macro-economy. But if September isany guide, the current "tax
                  > debate"is leading nowhere.
                  >
                  > Regards.
                  >
                  > Rana
                  >
                  > -------
                  >
                  > Dr. Rana Roy
                  > 5 Bryanston Square
                  > London W1H 2DH
                  > United Kingdom
                  > Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
                  > E-mail: rana.roy@...
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  >
                  > From: Wetzel Dave
                  >
                  >
                  > To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                  > Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                  > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: RE: FT article
                  > today calls for tax on land
                  >
                  > I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group
                  > member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our
                  > attention to today's FT.
                  >
                  > Dave
                  > Dave Wetzel;
                  > Chair PLRG
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
                  > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM To: Wetzel Dave
                  > Subject: FT article today
                  >
                  > Dear Dave
                  > Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told
                  > to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the
                  > sentence: "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates
                  > are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and
                  > immobile assets such as land" CD Howe Institute, Toronto I thought
                  > this was a useful piece of ammunition.
                  >
                  > Best
                  > Carole
                  >
                  > Carole Tongue
                  > Associate Director
                  > Sovereign Strategy
                  > 60 Trafalgar Square
                  > London, WC2N 5DS
                  >
                  > +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel
                  > +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax
                  > +44 (0)797 492 5822- Mobile
                  >
                  > carole.tongue@...
                  > www.sovereignstrategy.com
                  >
                  >
                  > ******************************************************************
                  > **************************************
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > *************************************************************
                  > ********************** The contents of the e-mail and any
                  > transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use
                  > of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport
                  > for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the
                  > quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
                  > transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be
                  > advised that you have received this email in error and that any
                  > use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
                  > is strictly prohibited.
                  >
                  > If you have received this email in error please notify
                  > postmaster@....
                  >
                  > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
                  > for the presence of computer viruses.
                  > *************************************************************
                  > **********************
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                  > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                  > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  > To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > * Visit your group "LandCafe" on the web.
                  >
                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > Service.
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 20/09/2005

                  --
                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 20/09/2005
                • Ed Dodson
                  A few days ago I took the opportunity to respond to a column in the Herald (Scotland), which was printed by the paper on Monday. Quite remarkably, I received
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 21, 2005
                    A few days ago I took the opportunity to respond to a column in the Herald (Scotland), which was printed by the paper on Monday. Quite remarkably, I received an email from Pater Aitchison of BBC Radio Four, who asked if I would participate in a taped 15-minute discussion on the flat tax with two other participants. The program -- "Four Corners" is to be taped with coming Monday and will be aired two weeks from then. Below is my letter, which at least a few in the UK has seen and sent me email acknowledgements. A good thing to do, if you have the time and inclination, might be to follow this up with your own view to the Herald, to keep the discussion going. Of course, I welcome any comments you care to make in support of or against my proposal.
                     
                    Ed Dodson
                     
                     
                     
                     Points of View

                    Your Letters September 19 2005

                    American experience of seeking fairer taxation
                    A colleague of mine living in Scotland asked for my comments on your
                    country's ongoing debate over how government ought to raise revenue. Similar
                    debates are occurring here in the United States, where the "philosophy" of
                    our elected officials over the decades has been to tax every person, every
                    asset and every type of transaction - so that no-one feels excessively
                    taxed. However, beginning with the Reagan years, there has been a steady
                    attack on the federal income tax as confiscatory. Our elected officials
                    have, in response, lowered the effective rate of taxation on what are called
                    "capital gains" (ie, the sale of shares of stock, of land and of buildings
                    and equipment) and on the highest marginal ranges of income.
                    Reagan-era "supply-side" economists forecast that lower tax rates would
                    yield greater investment in production of goods and a net gain in revenue
                    for government. This did not occur. The already wealthy took their
                    additional income and invested it the stock market or speculated in the land
                    market. The results should have been predictable: spiralling share prices
                    and land prices, as well as a rapidly rising national debt. The corrections
                    followed: the 1987 stock market correction; the 1988-1993 land market
                    crashes followed by the savings and loan crisis.
                    The Bush administration, supported by his party in Congress, have ignored
                    the results of their revenue policies at a time of dramatic increases in
                    spending. By the time George Bush leaves office, the federal debt will
                    likely exceed $10 trillion, requiring $500bn in annual taxation just to
                    service this debt.
                    These are the lessons of recent and current history the citizens of Scotland
                    ought to keep in mind as you entertain changes in how your government raises
                    its revenue.
                    Economic theory supports shifting government's source of revenue to land
                    values as possible. No less an authority than your own Adam Smith recognised
                    that land values are societally-created (ie, the result of aggregate public
                    and private investment, rather than of what individuals do or do not do with
                    land they hold). At the same time, homes, office buildings, manufacturing
                    plants, warehouses, retail stores and other types of property improvements
                    are best left untaxed.
                    As more modern economists have observed, the path to non-inflationary
                    economic growth is best served by taxing as little as possible those
                    behaviours desired, while taxing at a high rate those behaviours a society
                    wants to discourage. A relatively high annual tax on land values discourages
                    the hoarding of land for speculation, encouraging land owners to bring their
                    land into development according to the market-determined "highest and best
                    use". A competitive land market also keeps land prices down, so that
                    businesses enjoy a lower entry cost, which is extremely important in today's
                    global economy.
                    As for the taxation of income, the one model that combines simplicity and
                    progressivity without being overly confiscatory is what I refer to as the
                    "graduated flat tax". This tax structure would exempt all individual incomes
                    up to some maximum (eg, the national median) from taxation. Then, without
                    any additional exemptions or deduction, a gradually increasing rate of
                    taxation would be applied to higher marginal ranges of income, with a cap of
                    35-45% on the highest ranges of income. The exact tax rates would be
                    adjusted for every budget period to ensure that government enjoys a balanced
                    budget.
                    These are measures our organisation has championed here in the United
                    States. As you might expect, powerful vested interests are opposed to any
                    systemic changes that causes them to carry their fair and appropriate share
                    of the burden of how our layers of government raise revenue. But, as in
                    Scotland, those of us who believe in justice continue to press for change.
                    Edward J Dodson, director, School of Co-operative Individualism, Cherry
                    Hill, New Jersey, USA.
                    www.cooperativeindividualism.org

                    ****

                    Dear Edward Dodson

                    I was very interested to read your letter which was published today in the
                    Herald newspaper in Scotland.

                    I produce an international discussion programme for BBC Radio 4 called "Four
                    Corners". One of the items which we will be looking at next Monday - 26
                    September - is that of tax policy around the world. This has partly been
                    stimulated by the debate over "flat rate taxation". The discussion, which
                    will probably last around 15 minutes will involve contributors from Estonia
                    and here in the UK. I wondered whether you might also be interested in
                    taking part? The programme is pre recorded at 1300 UK time {which, I think,
                    is 0800 your time} and we do ask that all of our contributors are "in
                    quality", either via ISDN or a radio studio as close to your base as we can
                    arrange. {The BBC has reciprocal agreements with dozens of radio stations
                    across the USA}

                    In the first instance could you email or call me - 0044 141 338 2976 - to
                    confirm your availability and to discuss your views in greater depth?

                    With many thanks and best wishes

                    Peter Aitchison
                    Senior Broadcast Journalist
                    BBC Radio Four
                    0044 141 338 2976
                    0792 1648366
                    peter.aitchison@...
                    peteraitchison8@...

                  • Mark Porthouse
                    Hi John, It is interesting to see how the cost to the employer varies with employee wage. I agree with your opinion that income taxes are actually a tax on
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 22, 2005
                      Hi John,

                      It is interesting to see how the 'cost to the employer' varies with
                      employee wage. I agree with your opinion that income taxes are actually
                      a tax on the employer.

                      One interesting thing within the flat tax discussion is the concept of
                      removal of tax credits etc so that the taxation does result in a truly
                      flat tax.

                      With regards to your data on 'actual tax rates', I recently did some
                      calculations to show how much 'final income' that a family of two
                      working parents and two children had depending on their wage from their
                      employers. These are the results (UK):

                      Gross wage final income
                      8,900 15,232
                      9,900 15,822
                      11,400 16,528
                      13,400 17,481
                      15,000 18,040
                      18,000 19,111
                      23,000 20,897

                      It is interesting to see how such a wide range of 'earnt' income results
                      in such a narrow range of 'final' income. Note that this doesn't even
                      show the loss of benefit of free NHS treatment which occurs somewhere
                      within that range of wages. It does account for income tax, NI, working
                      tax credit and child tax credit.

                      An interesting observation to make is that employers are heavily
                      subsidised by the state to employ people low in the wage band. So you
                      could say that the cost to the employer of £1 of labour is 50p!

                      Cheers,

                      Mark

                      John Havercroft wrote:
                      > Rana,
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you think.
                      > Apart from the sin taxes and “user charges” things are pretty flat as
                      > far as the major tax farms are concerned.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions. We have Corporation
                      > tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read voter) lower earners
                      > and we have income tax/national insurance. On PAYE if, like me, you
                      > believe that taxes on income are income taxes the picture looks much
                      > flatter. In my view the income tax is the amount that is paid to the
                      > government out of every pound it costs an employer and I am attaching my
                      > chart that presents the figures on this basis.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Apart from a small anomaly where employees’ NI ends before higher rate
                      > tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small entry rate
                      > income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and 48%.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the non-employed is
                      > at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity to split the charge
                      > between payers and disguise it though for “Coupon Clippers” there is a
                      > higher total tax burden on the original income, which suffers
                      > Corporation Tax as well as personal tax.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to the
                      > employee of putting another £1 in the employee’s pocket that are
                      > interesting in other discussions.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate and
                      > lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead it. But
                      > whose fault is that!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Regards
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > John H
                    • John Havercroft
                      Mark, Your point is well made. Sadly our system fails to educate and then puts little value on the unskilled and largely prevents them from being viable
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 22, 2005
                        Mark,

                        Your point is well made. Sadly our system fails to educate and then puts
                        little value on the unskilled and largely prevents them from being viable
                        employees by adding vast on-costs to anyone employing them; forcing them
                        into the twilight zone of benefit "fraud" and casual, unrecorded work or
                        subsidised employment.

                        The two tables sit well together. It would be very easy to construct a flat
                        income tax regime with a subject's stipend (citizen's weekly dividend) for
                        each man woman and child with an ID card which would restore incentives and
                        produce an outcome without the very high marginal effective tax rates; and
                        eliminate a vast army of tax gatherers and benefit payers who inevitably
                        contribute to all the nonsense and hardship of over/under paid tax and
                        credits.

                        More sensible still perhaps would be for the basic income tax to be replaced
                        by LVT leaving just a income tax charge on those of you who earn more than
                        is deemed politically acceptable.

                        Thus far Gordon Brown has tripled the size of the rule books and has
                        amalgamated benefits, income tax and VAT into a new mega department of
                        multiple failing computer systems and even more diffuse expertise.
                        Brilliant!

                        So, who is in charge of the asylum?

                        John H


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Mark Porthouse [mailto:lists1@...]
                        Sent: 22 September 2005 09:56
                        To: John Havercroft; "land cafe"@...
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land

                        Hi John,

                        It is interesting to see how the 'cost to the employer' varies with
                        employee wage. I agree with your opinion that income taxes are actually
                        a tax on the employer.

                        One interesting thing within the flat tax discussion is the concept of
                        removal of tax credits etc so that the taxation does result in a truly
                        flat tax.

                        With regards to your data on 'actual tax rates', I recently did some
                        calculations to show how much 'final income' that a family of two
                        working parents and two children had depending on their wage from their
                        employers. These are the results (UK):

                        Gross wage final income
                        8,900 15,232
                        9,900 15,822
                        11,400 16,528
                        13,400 17,481
                        15,000 18,040
                        18,000 19,111
                        23,000 20,897

                        It is interesting to see how such a wide range of 'earnt' income results
                        in such a narrow range of 'final' income. Note that this doesn't even
                        show the loss of benefit of free NHS treatment which occurs somewhere
                        within that range of wages. It does account for income tax, NI, working
                        tax credit and child tax credit.

                        An interesting observation to make is that employers are heavily
                        subsidised by the state to employ people low in the wage band. So you
                        could say that the cost to the employer of £1 of labour is 50p!

                        Cheers,

                        Mark

                        John Havercroft wrote:
                        > Rana,
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you think.
                        > Apart from the sin taxes and "user charges" things are pretty flat as
                        > far as the major tax farms are concerned.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions. We have Corporation
                        > tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read voter) lower earners
                        > and we have income tax/national insurance. On PAYE if, like me, you
                        > believe that taxes on income are income taxes the picture looks much
                        > flatter. In my view the income tax is the amount that is paid to the
                        > government out of every pound it costs an employer and I am attaching my
                        > chart that presents the figures on this basis.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Apart from a small anomaly where employees' NI ends before higher rate
                        > tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small entry rate
                        > income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and 48%.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the non-employed is
                        > at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity to split the charge
                        > between payers and disguise it though for "Coupon Clippers" there is a
                        > higher total tax burden on the original income, which suffers
                        > Corporation Tax as well as personal tax.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to the
                        > employee of putting another £1 in the employee's pocket that are
                        > interesting in other discussions.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate and
                        > lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead it. But
                        > whose fault is that!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Regards
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > John H
                        --
                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                        Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.4/109 - Release Date: 21/09/2005

                        --
                        No virus found in this outgoing message.
                        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                        Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.4/109 - Release Date: 21/09/2005
                      • David Terry
                        Each of the examples that Dan cites is right-on except one. charges for licenses of all sorts . Lincensure is nothing more than an extreme form of income
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 22, 2005
                          Each of the examples that Dan cites is 'right-on' except one. "charges for
                          licenses of all sorts'.
                          Lincensure is nothing more than an extreme form of income tax and is even
                          more distructive
                          to the opportunities of the disadvantaged. Whereas there is a natural
                          tendency for professions
                          and industries to restrict competition by limiting the supply of providers,
                          licensing becomes
                          the perfect vehicle for such anti-competitive, anti-market policies.

                          Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the taxi industry, where
                          'medalions' can cost thousands
                          of dollars/pounds and yet service in many parts of the city are
                          non-existent.

                          David Terry

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...>
                          To: "Rana Roy" <rana.roy@...>; "John Havercroft"
                          <john.havercroft@...>; "Wetzel Dave" <Davewetzel@...>;
                          "'Land Café ( lc1) '" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Cc: "'Carole Tongue'" <Carole.Tongue@...>; "'Fred Harrison
                          (The Land Research Trust)'" <metaman@...>
                          Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:09 AM
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land


                          The reason why there are so many exemptions, allowances and
                          incentives is that income taxes are fundamentally destructive.
                          Eliminating the work-arounds will only make it more destructive. The
                          way to get rid of all those aberrations in the income tax is to get rid of
                          the income tax itself by replacing it with flat taxes on the value of
                          privileges: royalties on coal, oil gas and minerals, full annual charges
                          for airport landing slots and harbor docking rights, charges on the
                          generation of pollution, full annual charges for licenses of all sorts,
                          from taxi permits to banking privileges, and, most of all, a substantial
                          charge on the rental value of land.

                          Do this and you can have an income tax of zero percent. It's hard to
                          get flatter than that.

                          -ds

                          On 21 Sep 2005 at 15:33, John Havercroft wrote:

                          >
                          > Rana,
                          >
                          > Yes but for me the attraction of the flat tax to me is the opportunity
                          > to sweep away the vast quantities of almost unintelligible verbiage
                          > that surrounds exemptions, allowances and incentives all over the tax
                          > system - enabling a rational view to be taken of the (very) few fiscal
                          > incentives which may be useful. However, we wonder off into a
                          > different debate: the concerted effort of this group should be to get
                          > a (any) version of an annual Land Tax onto the statute book. It is a
                          > much easier to change the regulations than it is to establish the
                          > base.
                          >
                          > John H
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Rana Roy [mailto:rana.roy@...]
                          > Sent: 21 September 2005 15:22
                          > To: John Havercroft; Wetzel Dave; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                          > Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                          > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land
                          >
                          > John,
                          >
                          > Agreed!Martin's point - and mine - was precisely this: given the
                          > UK tax system as it stands, there is little to be gained by
                          > flattening it out further. But there would be losses in
                          > eliminating all exemptions as the flat-taxers propose: some of
                          > these exemptions have an important contribution to make in
                          > correcting systemic deficits in pension savings, technical
                          > innovations, and so on.Most importantly, the entire debate around
                          > the flat tax is a distraction from the key issue: the need to
                          > maximise the tax-take from economic rents and externalities and
                          > minimise the tax-take from capital, labour and final consumption.
                          >
                          > Regards.
                          >
                          > Rana
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: John Havercroft
                          > To: Rana Roy ; Wetzel Dave ; 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                          > Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                          > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:14 PM Subject: RE:
                          > [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls for tax on land
                          >
                          > Rana,
                          >
                          > I am not so sure that we are as far away from flat taxes as you
                          > think. Apart from the sin taxes and ouser charges things are
                          > pretty flat as far as the major tax farms are concerned.
                          >
                          > We have VAT, which is flat but full of exemptions. We have
                          > Corporation tax at 30% with some distortions for owner (read
                          > voter) lower earners and we have income tax/national insurance. On
                          > PAYE if, like me, you believe that taxes on income are income
                          > taxes the picture looks much flatter. In my view the income tax is
                          > the amount that is paid to the government out of every pound it
                          > costs an employer and I am attaching my chart that presents the
                          > figures on this basis.
                          >
                          > Apart from a small anomaly where employeesT NI ends before higher
                          > rate tax starts the rates, above the tax free allowance and small
                          > entry rate income tax comes in two bands at near enough 40% and
                          > 48%.
                          >
                          > Taxation on the income of the self-employed and on the
                          > non-employed is at lower rates; there is not the same opportunity
                          > to split the charge between payers and disguise it though for
                          > oCoupon Clippers there is a higher total tax burden on the
                          > original income, which suffers Corporation Tax as well as personal
                          > tax.
                          >
                          > The chart also includes cumulative rates and the marginal cost to
                          > the employee of putting another £1 in the employeeTs pocket that
                          > are interesting in other discussions.
                          >
                          > Otherwise I share your depression at the level of political debate
                          > and lazy, and cheap, journalism that our politicians allow to lead
                          > it. But whose fault is that!
                          >
                          > Regards
                          >
                          > John H
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On
                          > Behalf Of Rana Roy Sent: 20 September 2005 15:36 To: Wetzel Dave;
                          > 'Land Café ( lc1)' Cc: 'Carole Tongue'; 'Fred Harrison (The Land
                          > Research Trust)' Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FT article today calls
                          > for tax on land
                          >
                          > Dave/Carole,
                          >
                          > Thanks for this. The Canadian study cited in the article looks
                          > interesting.
                          >
                          > However: it is misleading to entitle the message: "FT article
                          > today calls for tax on land".Just as misleading as, say, "FT
                          > article today calls for tax on consumption". Both are mentioned in
                          > the same breath - andby way of passing - in a single sentence. I
                          > would also note that the articles itself misdescribes the study in
                          > its title: "Leading economies told to lighten taxes".
                          >
                          > I am sorry to be pedantic but I do think the point is important.
                          > After the election victory in May, I was optimistic that we
                          > wouldwitness a serious debate on tax, beginning with aserious
                          > response to the excellent articles in FTbySam Brittan and Martin
                          > Wolf in the pre-election period. But neither the media debate nor
                          > the hints on policy development in recent weeks provide grounds
                          > for optimism.
                          >
                          > First of all, September began withthe orchestrated nonsense on the
                          > flat tax. Martin Wolfdid an excellentpiece on this on the 9th of
                          > September - I sent him my congrats - but it is a pity that we
                          > should have to waste our time in fending off this nonsense. I am
                          > delighted that the German Tories are now looking very foolish -
                          > theflat taxidea damaged them seriously -but all this is swamping
                          > precious time and space.
                          >
                          > Secondly, the demand for "simplification" - one of the supposed
                          > selling points of the flat tax - reflects a dumbing down of the
                          > public space that bodes ill for policy development. Some of the
                          > key exemptions and complications in the tax code are there for a
                          > purpose -Martin argued the point strongly and the Canadian
                          > studyprovides a perfect example. Thus, Sweden, with a "middling"
                          > corporate tax rate, imposesone of the lowest effective tax rates
                          > on capital, thanks to depreciation allowances,in the
                          > processfacilitating a faster pace of innovation.But here? Doing my
                          > tax books in August, I discovered that Government had reduced by
                          > half the depreciation allowance on IT. Apparently, nobody had
                          > noticed.
                          >
                          > Finally and most recently, we learn today that Government has
                          > pushed out the revaluation of Council tax to a date beyond the
                          > next election. This is not what Lyons recommended and it cannot be
                          > passed off as a matter of waiting for the Lyons review. Now I am
                          > no fan of the Council Tax: it's a petty andinefficient property
                          > tax and should be withdrawn, once a comprehensive land value tax
                          > has been instituted. Nonetheless, we need to recognise that the
                          > recent campaign against the Council tax, and against the
                          > revaluation, has been entirely driven by a thoroughly reactionary
                          > principle: namely, that taxes should not fall on asset wealth and
                          > gains in asset wealth but rather on labour incomes. That such
                          > acampaign should prove partially successfulstrikes me as a deeply
                          > worrying development.
                          >
                          > Iremain hopeful that "events, dear boy, events"will generate a
                          > rethinking on fiscal policy and the need to tax economic rents -
                          > events in the energy market, housing market and the wider
                          > macro-economy. But if September isany guide, the current "tax
                          > debate"is leading nowhere.
                          >
                          > Regards.
                          >
                          > Rana
                          >
                          > -------
                          >
                          > Dr. Rana Roy
                          > 5 Bryanston Square
                          > London W1H 2DH
                          > United Kingdom
                          > Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
                          > E-mail: rana.roy@...
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          >
                          > From: Wetzel Dave
                          >
                          >
                          > To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'
                          > Cc: 'Carole Tongue' ; 'Fred Harrison (The Land Research Trust)'
                          > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: RE: FT article
                          > today calls for tax on land
                          >
                          > I'm grateful to our good friend, Professional Land Reform Group
                          > member and former Euro MEP, Carole Tongue for drawing our
                          > attention to today's FT.
                          >
                          > Dave
                          > Dave Wetzel;
                          > Chair PLRG
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Carole Tongue [mailto:Carole.Tongue@...]
                          > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:59 PM To: Wetzel Dave
                          > Subject: FT article today
                          >
                          > Dear Dave
                          > Reading page 12 bottom article of FT today "Leading economies told
                          > to lighten taxes" I was surprised and pleased to read the
                          > sentence: "Personal and corporate taxes with high marginal rates
                          > are much more harmful to growth than levies on consumption and
                          > immobile assets such as land" CD Howe Institute, Toronto I thought
                          > this was a useful piece of ammunition.
                          >
                          > Best
                          > Carole
                          >
                          > Carole Tongue
                          > Associate Director
                          > Sovereign Strategy
                          > 60 Trafalgar Square
                          > London, WC2N 5DS
                          >
                          > +44 (0) 20 7930 6353 - Tel
                          > +44 (0) 20 7839 4564 - Fax
                          > +44 (0)797 492 5822- Mobile
                          >
                          > carole.tongue@...
                          > www.sovereignstrategy.com
                          >
                          >
                          > ******************************************************************
                          > **************************************
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > *************************************************************
                          > ********************** The contents of the e-mail and any
                          > transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use
                          > of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport
                          > for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the
                          > quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
                          > transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be
                          > advised that you have received this email in error and that any
                          > use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
                          > is strictly prohibited.
                          >
                          > If you have received this email in error please notify
                          > postmaster@....
                          >
                          > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
                          > for the presence of computer viruses.
                          > *************************************************************
                          > **********************
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                          > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                          > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          > To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                          >
                          > * Visit your group "LandCafe" on the web.
                          >
                          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          > Service.
                          >
                          >
                          >







                          Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                          (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                          To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
                          Yahoo! Groups Links






                          ---
                          [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]


                          ---
                          [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]
                        • David Terry
                          ... Piccadilly Circus - which is why the tourist bus company paid a lot for it. So, why didn t the tourist bus company spend the 30 quid, obtain its own
                          Message 12 of 12 , Sep 23, 2005
                            Dave Wetzel writes:

                            > Only one space available in that location between Leicester Square and
                            Piccadilly Circus - which is why the tourist bus company paid a lot for it.

                            So, why didn't the tourist bus company spend the 30 quid, obtain its own
                            license, cut out the 'trader' and spare you from the annoyance of having one
                            more member of the 'nouveau riche'?

                            Clearly, we are discussing apples and apricots here. You seem to mean
                            something entirely different when you use 'license' than I do.

                            If you will refer to my last post on the subject, I said, "The first
                            question is,
                            was this an exclusive license? Were others who applied for similar licenses
                            denied them. If so, than this is a prime example of a state protected
                            monopoly,
                            which, I think we all find appalling.

                            Surely, you are not arguing that the tourist bus company offered the only,
                            outlet for overseas newspapers in London. If I'm not mistaken, one can find
                            copies of The New York Times, LeMonde, Yomiuri Shimbun, etc in every
                            international hotel in the city and hundreds of other tourist locations.

                            I think we ALL agree that permitting government to give "exclusive" rights
                            to
                            one or a limitted number of citizens to a specific trade or a specific
                            'territory'
                            is egregious; both economically as well as morally.

                            I also maintain that requiring citizens to obtain "official permission' to
                            conduct
                            or enter a business or trade that is perfectly legal is simply 'governmental
                            extortion'.
                            No one should ever have to obtain a license to earn a living! .
                            .


                            > If councils auctioned these spaces for five years then everybody would
                            have
                            > an opportunity to bid and the receipts could be used to improve the street
                            > environment for all.

                            My presumption has been from the onset, that we are talking about sales at
                            either unfixed public locations or on private property. Of course, different
                            rules
                            would apply here. If these sales are, in fact, in a fixed commons area,
                            than, as
                            you suggested, a lottery would be appropriate.

                            Clearly, this is NOT the scenario that I was referring to when I lamented
                            the
                            negative consequences of licensing tradesmen and merchants..


                            I hope this clears the confusion.
                            regards,

                            David Terry

                            ---
                            [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.