"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:10:07 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



More lunacy. Arbitrary? To get house
built you need a letter from God.

Really? At least the address for
applications is clear..

Yep.

However, on the other hand you
are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution
of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

What would this Draconian taxation be?

Land Value Tax.

Once again you show gross ignorance
of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

Large landowners hate it and
put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I
can't imagine that the typical
homeowner

A typical homeowner is not a large landowner. Your confused mind is getting
the best of you.

In a free market, one can own,
buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.

Land is NOT an asset.

An asset is a valuable item that is
owned and may be bought and sold.
Land certainly falls into that category.

Land is not a commodity. It is NOT
a washing machine. Your sycophantic
mind has great difficulty is understanding
this. Land is God given. Do you
want people to own the air as well?
They we could pay rent to private air
owners too.

I know that Christmas is coming.
Have you suddenly got religion or
something, or is it the sherry?

So you do want private air owners we pay rent to.

If you are saying that it shouldn't
be an asset, then that is
something else.

Land is NOT a commodity. It is finite.
Because of this simple fact it is clear
that it should not be in the hands of a few.

The argument of being finite could
apply to anything on the planet.

Nonsense. We can't freely make more land.

The Dutch managed it, although admittedly
most smells of pig ****.

You really are thick..as thick as that Ditch pig ****.

We can make as many cars
(commodity) as we want.

Ultimately that isn't true.
The resources are all finite. It's a
matter of degree.

We could all have 10 each. We can't all have Surrey each, can we?

Other countries realise this and make
this not so. We can make as a many
washing machines as we want, but
that is not the case with land.

Ultimately, the materials and energy
that go into making washing
machines are finite.

Not as finite as land.

Either something is finite or
it isn't,

Land is and we can't live without it.

The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what....

That mean most is on the hands of a few. Get it?

This does not mean that the
other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

As they (their ancestors) took it from the 99.34% anyway it can be taken
back. George Orwell described them as tapeworms.

Would you apply this principle to
any resource owned by a small number
of people?

Land is NOT a commodity resource.

Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implemented by many
cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

That does not alter "would" to "will".

It does! No ifs about it.

Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so
it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into
public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any
profit. We, the people, don't lose.

Who is this "we the people"?

Us, all the people, you, me and everyone. Can't you figure this out?

Out of one side of your mouth you
are talking about liberalisation of
planning and people being able
to do what they want; while from the
other you are talking about public
ownership and enforced
redistribution of wealth

Yiu are a sycophantic thicko, that is clear. LVT, does not own the land. It
can remain in the hands of the current owners, but they pay tax on it. So,
the Duke of Argyle, who has about 1/4 of Scotland would have to pay tax on
"all" his land, which currently he does not. Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone. So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells. Natural land distribution. No compulsory
purchase.

It's not even January yet.

The people will gain more in
revenue. A man's labour will not
be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous.
Or Council tax, in which you improve your
home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Both are ludicrous in terms of their
degree. A more appropriate
approach would be less government
taking and spending.

Wrong again. LVT is the most appropriate way.

Yerrrssssss......

That is encouraging.