On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:59:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



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

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

OK, so you don't know.


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.

So please explain how your tax would not penalise typical home owners
and only the large landowners.


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.

The sherry.



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?

Exactly. It's a matter of degree.



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?

I repeat. So what....



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.

This would assume that the 99.34% owned it at some stage in the past
and that the 0.36% are in breach of current legislation.





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

Land is NOT a commodity resource.

Two definitions for commodity:

"something useful or valued"

"something that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a
market"

Both would appear to apply to land. You may not *like* that thought,
but that is the way it is.



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.

Ah, that's all right then. God will be in his Heaven (when not
giving out planning consents) and all will be well with the world.



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?

So power to the people?



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.

Why?

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.

Why? He pays tax on his income and capital gains.

Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP? Perhaps you ought to have a word with
your friend Tony and ask him why he gave away a piece of Britain's
rebate with little to show for it other than the possibility of a few
more months in his miserable position.


So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells.

Why? It is not reasonable to tax ownership of an asset, only a profit
made from it. The current systems do that.


Natural land distribution. No compulsory
purchase.

If you believe that, you would believe anything.



--

..andy