"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

No. You are very 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.

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

It doesn't tax their small income, and doesn't penalise their homes when
they make a small extension.

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.

Yes, if you say so.

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.

Your retarded mind hasn't figured that one out.

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....

So you still don't 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.

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.

They 99.34% did own it. The thieves made their own legislation. Stealing is
stealing.

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.

Nope! Land is essential to life. Washing machines are not.

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.

OK.

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?

Yes, what Thatcher used to shout. But gave none whatsoever to any people,
reinforcing a Stalinist planning system.

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

You 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?

This confirms your thickoness.

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.

And sweet FA tax on all that land and received public money for doing sweet
FA.

Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP?

He receives public money to leave it alone.

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

Why?

Because ghe can't pay the tax. Boy are you slow.

Natural land distribution. No compulsory
purchase.

If you believe that, you would
believe anything.

Boy you are sycophantic slow.