"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:41:41 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"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.

OK, so normal diversion....

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.

Waffle. Explain how it differentiates.

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.

I get that you are advocating a
redistribution of wealth of untold
proportions.

It distributes the means of a society's production more evenly. Read the
basic of Land Value Tax, and American idea, with fans such as the Bushes,
Einstein, etc.

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.

The government does it all the time.

More Little Middle England silliness.

However, coming to the point,
why single out land for this treatment?

Treatment of what? Taxing only the value of land distributes a society's
wealth more evenly. Your sycophantic nature may want you to give more of
your wealth to stinking rich people. That is fine if you do it
individually. Society should not penalise the poor and make the rich
richer.

Surely it should apply to every asset
where a few have a lot if one
follows your position.

Land is not an asset as such. Not a commodity. You have difficulty with
this.

Geolibertarians have a profound respect for the principle that one has
private property in the fruits of one's labor. This includes the fruits of
mental labor and the results of reinvestment of legitimate private property
(capital) in future production. They remain consistent in that respect by
recognising, as did the classic liberals, that land and raw natural
resources are not the fruits of labor, but a common heritage to be accessed
on terms that are equal under the law for everyone. The statist system of
land tenure empowers non-producing landlords to extract the fruits of
tenants' labour.

Geolibertarians also consider themselves "green" in respect for the earth as
our common heritage. However, they clearly distinguish between land as
common property and land as state property. Unlike left-wing or "watermelon"
greens, they advocate governance of land in harmony with free market
principles, and deny the right of statist bureaucracies to meddle in the
affairs of individual land holders. They see themselves as embracing the
best attributes of the Green and Libertarian parties.

Geolibertarians also believe in free trade, with no state support for
monopoly privileges of any kind. They therefore oppose money monopolies,
information monopolies, a host of lesser monopolies, and most of all,
monopoly of the power to govern, as embodied by statist political systems.
They are not nihilistic anarchists. They believe that monopoly privileges
can be gently and methodically displaced without disrupting to society, even
when statists resort to violence to prevent it.

Famous people with geolibertarian ideas:

Classic liberals: Jefferson, Locke, Mill, Paine, Adam Smith, etc.
Modern libertarians: Choderov, Nock, Hess, Nolan, etc
Other famous people: Churchill, Einstein, Tolstoy, etc

Nope! Land is essential to life.

Direct ownership is not
unless one has to live directly from
agriculture on it.

We can't live without land. Should we apply rent to air as well. So the
Airlord will come each week with a rent book.

So power to the people?

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

It's difficult to see how you can lay that
one at the good Baroness's
door. By your own statements,
the system as we know it today has
been in place for decades before
1979 and continues to this day.
Numerous governments, apart that
of the exalted Lady Thatcher, have
had the opportunity to alter it but have
chosen not to do so.

Thatcher made the planning system even more Stalinist, to pander to her Tory
voting NIMBYs.

"But the public always prefers development to be somewhere else, not near
them: NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. Public participation in the process, the
ability to put pressure on local and central government, meant that
Conservative homeowners in Conservative shires could block or divert
development which might otherwise occur near them.
Thus the planning system was not something that the party's core voters
wanted to be dismantled in favour of market forces. Indeed, a former speech
writer for a Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment told one of
the authors that he wrote speeches, with gritted teeth, in praise of
planning, and that the Secretary of State, with teeth gritted, delivered
them."

"Even then, planning continued untrammelled. Indeed, in 1990, with a move to
'plan led' development, the British system became even more like a
Soviet-style central planning system than it had been before. It is a
paradox to be savoured that a year after the Berlin Wall came down, whilst
the Soviet economy and its satellites were collapsing, a conservative
government should have enforced a system of Soviet-style central planning
for the provision of housing in Britain."

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.

Why should he pay tax on mere
ownership of an asset?

Read above.

Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP?

He receives public money to leave it alone.

Pray tell why that is if it is not because of 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 he can't pay the tax. Boy are you are slow.

This is not a reason for having
the tax in the first place unless one
has the objective of redistributing wealth.
If that is really your agenda, why not
just be honest and say so.

Redistributing is taking what is in the bank and dishing it out. Fair
distribution of the products of a society is different. You have difficulty
with this.