"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

A tax is a levy into the state which you do not know where is going.

Thats just plain wrong. Some taxes are allocated to specific uses.

It is not a tax then. There is a difference between a charge and a tax.
Thatcher called the Poll Tax the Community Charge. The title was correct.The
idea of the Poll tax was plain daft like the PM at the time.

LVT is a charge (not tax) for services.

Even you should be able to work out what the T stands for.

Renaming LVT a charge

Firstly, LVT is a misnomer, as it is not a tax, it is a charge. Many
observers have suggested re-titling from LVT to a title incorporating the
words "charge" and "reclaim", to give clearer meaning and public
understanding. A tax is a levy that goes directly into public coffers with
the payer not knowing in detail where the money is spent.[14] Naming a
community charge a tax is regarded as a major obstacle by many Geoists in
promoting public acceptance of LVT. A public charge on the unearned gains of
land is

clearly not a tax. LVT is in two parts:
1. Reclamation of community created economic growth that soaked into the
land crystalizing as land values.
2. A charge on the community benefits received.

A part of those payments are via a general charge on the gains of land,
gains created community activity. The LVT charge is a payment for the actual
services and benefits accessed at each and every location. The payment is
determined not by government, but by the person who chooses to locate on
that site. This means the level of payment is:

1. Voluntary
2. Proportionate to the benefits received

The above are not the characteristics of a tax.

To call LVT a tax is to implicitly concede:

a) The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources.
b) The willingness to collect no more than a small percentage of land's
income stream - meaning the landowner may legitimately retain the untaxed
gains.

The conventional language of naming a charge a tax will obstruct fiscal
reform. By a linguistic shift in re-titling LVT, the moral basis of Land
Valuation Tax is transformed. A correct naming of LVT invites middle-class
home-owners to honor their value system - pay for what they get, and be rid
of taxes on the incomes they earn. By renaming LVT the voting majority -
middle-class home-owners - would generally not oppose and go along with the
charge.[15]

A public charge on the uneaened profits of land is not a TAX.

How odd that the last word of LVT is TAX.

It is still charging on "unearned" gains.

To call it a tax is to concede:

1. The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources

Even sillier. Plenty of taxes do nothing of the kind.

You did not undertand the point - as usual.

2. The willingness to collect no more than a percentage of land's
income stream - meaning: the "owner" may legitimately retain the
untaxed gains.

Even sillier. Most taxes do just that.

You did not undertand the point - as usual.

people pay personally, directly, for the benefits they receive.

Even sillier with land that they dont even occupy by which they have to
pay the tax on.

If they do not occupy land they "own" full LVT is charged. As those at that
location receive the benefits of that location.

Part of those payments must be by way of a general charge on the imputed
rent of land. But that charge (LVT) is payment for the actual services
accessed at each and every location.

Wrong with land which isnt currently being used.

If the "owner" is not occupying the land the occupier receives the benefits
of that site. That is easy to understand.

So the LVT payment is determined NOT by the state but by the person who
chooses to locate him/herself on that site. This means the payment is

1. Voluntary

Like hell it is when they will take if off you or jail you if you dont pay
it.

The level of payment is voluntary. Move to a lower LVT area and you pay
less.

Full LVT has people paying for the full price for the services they
personally receive,

They dont recieve any with unused land.

They receive the benefits of the location.

in the way that they do in the consumer, labour and capital markets.

Pigs arse they do, most obviously with voluntary labor.

They do. Read again.

LVT does not tax your garden - all LVT does is make you to honour your
obligation to pay for the services you receive,

Even sillier with unused land.

The person at the location get the benefits of that location.

rather than sponge off tenant families who pay the full rent of their
location PLUS taxes on their wages which are used, in part, to subsidise
the landowner.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks, eh comrade ?

The simple fact is that landowners and sponge of non-landowners. It is not
difficult to understand

LVT is the "Single Tax"

Nope, not one country or even region is actually
stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Powerful landowning vested interest stops it. Look at British history. One
of land struggle and still going on. A handful of families treat the whole
country like their own private estate.

- meaning we fund public services out of the value that is created by
those services.

We clearly dont when not one country or even region
is actually stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Many do in fact. Hong Kong for sure. Taiwan, Singapore. Auss, USA, Denmark.
Estonia. You have been told this but your retention is near zero.

You are clearly not very bright. This is sad.