Vested Interests Rigged The Economy

The 1929 and 2008 crashes were fuelled by land prices spiralling out of
control.

The Queen Could not be Told the Truth

When the Queen of England visited the London School of Economics. She asked
a simple question about the looming economic disaster,

"why did no one notice it coming?".

Professor Garicano replied,

"at every stage everyone was relying on someone else, and all thought they
were doing the right thing".

As modern economists use a collection of mangled economics the Queen could
not be told the truth.

Economists 100 Years Ago Colluded to Distort Economics

A century ago a group of influential economists: John Bates Clark, Frank
Knight, Francis Walker, Edward Seligan and Richard Ely, colluded to
manipulate the building blocks of classical economics. They had an
ideological agenda. The future they shaped is our reality. Their mission was
clear to protect the vital interests of the privileged few. To so they had
to conceal the unique qualities of the classical factors of production -
LAND.

A century of economic disasters followed that literally messed with our
lives. Economics has been a tool for contorting our collective
consciousness. The current economic crisis as an example to the pathetic
state to which economics has been reduced.

Modern Economist are Confused

We handsomely reward economists to fine tune to the economy to keep it
stable. When boom turns to bust they escape into mysticism. They claim,

"occasional slow downs are natural and necessary features of a market
economy".

The people we trust to keep the economy on an even keel have no idea what
makes an economy explode. Take the central bankers, they pontificated,
moving interest rates up and and manipulating the money supply. They didn't
know what they were doing - it was all an illusion.

The problem lies in some of the theories invented by encomists. They do not
reflect the real world. They are fictions invented to explain an imaginary
market economy. When the economy overheats the imaginary equations turn out
to be useless.

Economists Admit Their Economic Models Do Not Work

The Daddy of all central bankers was Alan Greenspan, of the US Federal
Reserve. He said,

"the models do not forecast recession because the parameters are dominated
by what happens in normal times when the economy is growing".

As the economy crumbled, He said to the US congress,

"I discovered a flaw in the model which I perceived as a critical function
structure which defines how the world works, I was shocked".

Greenspan's victims are more than shocked, they are traumatised losing their
homes and jobs.

In failing to raise the warning flags, Greenspan was not alone, economists
at the Bank of England also failed to forecast the end of the business
cycle. They confessed their economic models break down when the going gets
tough. Rachel Lomax, deputy governor of the Bank of England confessed,

"When it comes to quantifying the changes in credit conditions, our
workhorse economic models still cannot help us very much".

If you were caught by surprise when the bottom fell out of the credit
market, don't worry, you were in good company. Leading economist at places
like the LSE were also shocked. Professor Sir Charles Woodhart, served on
the Bank of England monetary policy committee, he now admits that standard
forecast economic models are

"effectively pretty useless".

Here is an example of the nonsense that can be produced by economic theory.
According to the British governments Property Valuation office in Jan 2008,
land values will continue to rise until 2013. Six months later the economy
had broken down. The graph has been erased from their web site.

Land Speculators Are the Biggest Gainers

Who gains from this intellectual mess? One groups of people reap spectacular
rewards, property developers, land speculators all reap windfall gains from
one asset that sustains us all, LAND.

In the good times when people go mad buying and selling properties, we
lionise these developers. Yet all they are doing is cashing in the on the
land values others create. Take the case of a cluster of flats adjacent to a
prime brownfields site. Their presence gives value to the adjacent site, yet
the thousands of residents of the flats will not share in the increased
values they help create.

Banks Fuelled The Property/Land Bubble

Bankers around the world played their part in the economic crisis pumping up
credit to fuel the property bubble. As land values rose bankers even created
more money. This was a self inflated bubble of hot air. It had to burst.

Economists Who Know The Answers Are Supressed

For the past century economist have messed with our minds. All is not lost.
A few economists have been stewards of the precious knowledge of how the
economy works. The Nobel prize winning economist Bill Vickry and the
California professor, Mason Gaffney in the USA and Fred Harrison in the UK.
All voices of reason that have been suppressed.

We Need To Force Through ChangeTo Eliminate Vested Interests

With all the global crisis's converging, mass unemployment, poverty,
terrorism. It is time to make up our minds and stop playing the game that
was rigged 100 years ago. If we do not challenge the vested interests that
exploit people, all of us, the environment and future generations will pay
the ultimate price.

We have to oblige our elected leaders to deal with the realities on the
ground. In the end it is up to everyone to assume personal responsibility
and restore common sense in the way we govern society.

The basics of classical economics:

LAND - The product is called economic rent
LABOUR - The product is wages
CAPITAL - Man made items, the product is interest and profit

The free market is rigged so LAND is a part of CAPITAL, distorting the
economic model. LAND is treated like a car or washing machine. We cannot
live without land or its resources. If we need more cars we make them, LAND
is not being made anymore. The values of LAND are not taxed,where the
taxation should be focused.

LABOUR is rigged. The CBI whinge continually that wages costs are too high.
They always want lower wages. Successive governments have given them this
by wage caps, and other schemes and currently by making the labour pool
larger by importing cheap labour from eastern Europe or the Third World.

We do not have a Free Market. It is rigged for the benefit of vested
interest.

Look at land and wages on the graph:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity...rice-graph.jpg

It shows that land was responsible for the Credit Crunch and that the CBI
indirectly suppressed earnings. All rigged.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

LABOUR is rigged.


Ah - drivel has finally seen the light


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

LABOUR is rigged.

Ah - drivel has finally seen the light

Fantastic Maxie! fantastic. What a man! You are trying think and all
sorts. You got it wrong but at least you tried. Great to see all this
thinkingness.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Vested Interests Rigged The Economy

The 1929 and 2008 crashes were fuelled by land prices spiralling out of
control.

Where is he cutting and pasting this crap from? ****wits Weekly News?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Vested Interests Rigged The Economy

The 1929 and 2008 crashes were fuelled by land prices spiralling out of
control.

Where

This one need tagging. ASBOs are not good enough for him.

If you think the UK TREASURY did not see the crash coming...
- They sold their entire Pension holding in Stocks & Property
- They moved it into UK Index Linked Gilts

If you think the US TREASURY did not see the crash coming...
- Greenspan went to work for Paulsons Hedge Fund as advisor
- Paulson made 1-Billion+ with a bet of 15-Million on property falls


USA & UK followed the same "home-ownership policies for all" re long
term (LT) future taxation, LT secured asset lending, LT indirect
taxation, ST votes. It blew up except in the UK - housing barely fell.
Credit rules were trashed, banks merged operations with paper thin
walls.

If you think Gordon the Clown did well, go to Trustnet and bring up a
Chart showing FTSE-100 (default index) over "since launch". It will
show the 1987 crash when Fed Reserve Greenspan created the "Fed Put"
and thereafter moved risk to the tax payer. Then look at the boom-bust-
boom-bust, now consider adjusting the return for FEES and INFLATION.
There is your return.

The real problem is post 1990 debt replaced earnings from 1995
(Greenspan) so as to re-ignite the economy in light of declining real
pay, collapsed "hierarchy" organisations, outsourcing, loss of
competitive advantage to low labour economies.

The problem is - we have changed NOTHING.
We have merely transferred the bubble to sovereign debt globally which
will eventually implode. You can not spend beyond what the private
sector creates, there is no free money, eventually your currency
devalues and standard of living has already peaked in both USA & UK.

The problem is Labour Is Not Working (Incapacity Benefit etc count)
AND Labour Is Not Earning (Debt replacing earnings).

js.b1 wrote:
If you think the UK TREASURY did not see the crash coming...
- They sold their entire Pension holding in Stocks & Property
- They moved it into UK Index Linked Gilts

If you think the US TREASURY did not see the crash coming...
- Greenspan went to work for Paulsons Hedge Fund as advisor
- Paulson made 1-Billion+ with a bet of 15-Million on property falls


USA & UK followed the same "home-ownership policies for all" re long
term (LT) future taxation, LT secured asset lending, LT indirect
taxation, ST votes. It blew up except in the UK - housing barely fell.
Credit rules were trashed, banks merged operations with paper thin
walls.

If you think Gordon the Clown did well, go to Trustnet and bring up a
Chart showing FTSE-100 (default index) over "since launch". It will
show the 1987 crash when Fed Reserve Greenspan created the "Fed Put"
and thereafter moved risk to the tax payer. Then look at the boom-bust-
boom-bust, now consider adjusting the return for FEES and INFLATION.
There is your return.

The real problem is post 1990 debt replaced earnings from 1995
(Greenspan) so as to re-ignite the economy in light of declining real
pay, collapsed "hierarchy" organisations, outsourcing, loss of
competitive advantage to low labour economies.

The problem is - we have changed NOTHING.
We have merely transferred the bubble to sovereign debt globally which
will eventually implode. You can not spend beyond what the private
sector creates, there is no free money, eventually your currency
devalues and standard of living has already peaked in both USA & UK.

The problem is Labour Is Not Working (Incapacity Benefit etc count)
AND Labour Is Not Earning (Debt replacing earnings).

Nice to see someone else understands the issues. I am not altogether
clear whose fault it really was - just a sort of ignorant collective
insanity., but the description of the situation is cogent.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Nice to see someone else understands

Like you he hasn't much of a clue.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...

If you think Gordon the Clown did well,
go to Trustnet and bring up a
Chart showing FTSE-100

We don't give a toss about the FTSE, no more than the betting odds at
Ladbrokes.

It is those that create economic growth that matter - not abetting shop.

The problem is - we have changed NOTHING.
We have merely transferred the bubble to sovereign debt globally which
will eventually implode. You can not spend beyond what the private
sector creates, there is no free money,

That only sense you said. The city institutions DO NOT create economic
growth.

snip a load of inaccurate drivel

The FACTS of the results of Labour from 1997 until the CC is indisputable.
They delivered.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...

If you think the UK TREASURY did not see the crash coming...

They NEVER!!!!

Here is the debt graph from that site. We were more in debt in from 1993 to
1997 under the Tories. Blair got rid of the debt quick enough with a surplus
from 1999 to 2003, and the economy boomed under Labour. Blair then started
to borrow to fund essential job creation and infrastructure. They have put
their prediction in blue, as a scare ploy, which is meaningless.

Heath left high debts and then Wilson Callaghan managed it well enough. Then
Thatcher got it down a little by using North Sea Oil revenues, not by
anything else, and for only a year was in surplus. All those riots, public
unrest and devastation for one years surplus - wow! What running of the
economy.

http://i43.tinypic.com/ayws43.png

66% of the debt will be paid back in around 3 to 4 years time under Labour.
They gave hard figures. The Tories gave none.

There is too much emphasis put on debt - if the debt is used to create
economic growth which brings in more taxes then

On Apr 28, 11:11*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"js.b1" wrote in message
...

If you think the UK TREASURY did not see the crash coming...

They NEVER!!!!

The UK Treasury moved THEIR OWN PENSION FUND out of Stocks & Property
before the crash, and into Index Linked Gilts.


to borrow to fund essential job creation

#1 Public Sector job creation is a COST.
#2 80% of jobs created have gone to non-UK residents since 1997.


66% of the debt will be paid back in around 3 to 4 years time under Labour.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 11:11 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"js.b1" wrote in message
...

If you think the UK TREASURY did not see the crash coming...

They NEVER!!!!

The UK Treasury moved THEIR OWN PENSION FUND out of Stocks & Property
before the crash, and into Index Linked Gilts.


Not because they knew anything was happing. All the "expert" economists were
not forecasting a crash.

66% of the debt will be paid back in around 3 to 4 years time under
Labour.
They gave hard figures. The Tories gave none.

No they will not - even with huge cuts & tax hikes. The unfunded
Pension Benefit Obligation is vast. UK deficit will exceed 300% GDP by
2040 (BIS).


Money is flowing INTO the UK. We are NOT Greece.

snip rambling opinions

On Apr 29, 12:46*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"js.b1" wrote in message

...
On Apr 28, 11:11 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"js.b1" wrote in message
....

If you think the UK TREASURY did not see the crash coming...

They NEVER!!!!

The UK Treasury moved THEIR OWN PENSION FUND out of Stocks & Property
before the crash, and into Index Linked Gilts.


Not because they knew anything was happing. All the "expert" economists were
not forecasting a crash.

You are DELUDED.

The ROYAL BANK of SCOTLAND **FORECAST** the crash.
18-Jun-2008.
The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-
fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three
months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.

"A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob
Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist.

A report by the bank's research team warns that the S&P 500 index of
Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to
around 1050 by September as "all the chickens come home to roost" from
the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across
Europe and emerging markets.

Such a slide on world bourses would amount to one of the worst bear
markets over the last century.

RBS said the iTraxx index of high-grade corporate bonds could soar to
130/150 while the "Crossover" index of lower grade corporate bonds
could reach 650/700 in a renewed bout of panic on the debt markets.

"I do not think I can be much blunter. If you have to be in credit,
focus on quality, short durations, non-cyclical defensive names.
advertisement

"Cash is the key safe haven. This is about not losing your money, and
not losing your job," said Mr Janjuah, who became a City star after
his grim warnings last year about the credit crisis proved all too
accurate.

RBS expects Wall Street to rally a little further into early July
before short-lived momentum from America's fiscal boost begins to
fizzle out, and the delayed effects of the oil spike inflict their
damage.

"Globalisation was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a
dangerous corner at some point. We have got to that point," he said.

US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank both face a Hobson's
choice as workers start to lose their jobs in earnest and lenders cut
off credit.

The authorities cannot respond with easy money because oil and food
costs continue to push headline inflation to levels that are
unsettling the markets. "The ugly spoiler is that we may need to see
much lower global growth in order to get lower inflation," he said.

"The Fed is in panic mode. The massive credibility chasms down which
the Fed and maybe even the ECB will plummet when they fail to hike
rates in the face of higher inflation will combine to give us a big
sell-off in risky assets," he said.

Kit Jukes, RBS's head of debt markets, said Europe would not be
immune. "Economic weakness is spreading and the latest data on
consumer demand and confidence are dire. The ECB is hell-bent on
raising rates.

"The political fall-out could be substantial as finance ministers from
the weaker economies rail at the ECB. Wider spreads between the German
Bunds and peripheral markets seem assured," he said.



Money is flowing INTO the UK. *We are NOT Greece.

Because the 80% of FTSE earnings are outside the UK + FTSE stocks are
priced in UKP + UKP is devaluing, thus foreign investors get more
earnings for their currency + Tax situation is favourable to foreign
investors.
Weak currency policies attract money into stocks particularly in a low
interest rate environment re dividend (4%), not just strong currency
policy & high interest rates.

Economy peaked in Apr 2006, Market peaked in Apr 2007 re commercials &
then sliding debt quality sowed the seeds of destruction Oct07 onwards
with Apr08 seeing the wings on fire. When the walked credit card
zombies just spin debt around cards the end result was going to be
pretty obvious, trees do not grow to the sky but debt does.

The currency run is a debt fuelled binge, it's faster than the
previous bubble run because a considerable amount of TARP & Bailout
money has been used to buy the markets. Indeed the QE crowd made it
very clear they would target any and all assets to achieve sufficient
liquidity - ie, pump pump & pump.


**** for brains brown couldn't see it coming, he's an economist, they
never can see past their ego.

Why Is So Much Wealth in the Hands Of So Few?

The tax system is both a contributory cause and a potential solution to the
problem.

Even the most cursory examination of tax regimes in most countries will show
that Land - by which we mean the entire range of natural resources used in
the production of goods and services - is generally undervalued and
massively under-taxed. Take Latin America, for example, where natural
resources have largely been appropriated by a tiny elite, often tracing
ownership to the era of the Conquistador, who have successfully resisted any
attempt to tax their wealth, or the rents that flow from it. We don't need
to elaborate on the consequences: the waste of scarce resources, the
regressive tax systems, the appalling inequality, and the criminality,
violence and insecurity that flows from it.

The case for taxing the "uneared income" from Land is compelling. At a time
when governments across the world face almost unprecedented pressure to
protect public services in the face of mounting fiscal deficits, new
solutions are required that do not involve imposing higher taxes on low
income households: Land Value Taxes are an idea whose time has long since
come.

To quote economist Henry George, one of the fathers of the Land Value Tax
campaign:

"I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land
was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked
like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there
who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it
came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing
wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who
work it must pay more for the privilege."

"Henry George inspired the philosophy and economic ideology known as
Geoeconimics, which is that everyone owns what they create, but that
everything found in nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all
humanity."

What Is Land Value Taxation?

Most of the things we see around us were made by man. The buildings we live
in, the vehicles we use, the clothes we wear and even most of the food we
eat are set in their present form by human effort.

Land is Completely Different.

No human being has made land, and the value of a piece of land derives from
such things as natural fertility, mineral deposits and its position in
relation to public utilities, natural harbours, communications and
population. Different pieces of land vary enormously in their value. An acre
of land in the middle of a town, for example, may be worth many thousands of
times as much as an acre of remote moorland. Therefore, a tax on land values
is a fair tax, because the person who owns land derives benefit from
something which he or she has not made.

The Big Idea

First off, the value of every piece of land in this country should be
assessed. By 'land' we mean the site alone, not counting any improvements
(the bricks of the house) on the site. Thus, the value of any buildings,
crops, drainage or anything else which people have put on, or done to, the
site would be ignored.
Then, after the land has been valued, a tax should be fixed on the basis of
that value. Of course this wouldn't mean any more overall taxation, because
the introduction of Land Value Taxation would permit other taxes to be
reduced or, in some cases, to be abolished altogether, such as income tax.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Why Is So Much Wealth in the Hands Of So Few?

Because that is the natural order of things. Even if we all started out
with exactly the same share in a few short years a few would have come
up with wheezes to separate the rest of us from a significant proportion
of our wealth and while perhaps the majority would work for a living and
speed more freely than was prudent thus further diminishing their wealth
a significant number wouldn't bother to work and, when their wealth ran
out demand to be supported by those who had been more prudent.

In the real world it doesn't always make sense to save for your old age
unless your are conspicuously successful as the Nanny State will make
sure the feckless and improvident in general and the shirking classes in
particular will have just as good (if not better) lifestyle as those who
haven't been conspicuously successful.


The tax system is both a contributory cause and a potential solution to
the problem.

Probably, but land taxation would just make matters worse.

Even the most cursory examination of tax regimes in most countries will
show that Land - by which we mean the entire range of natural resources
used in the production of goods and services - is generally undervalued
and massively under-taxed. Take Latin America, for example, where
natural resources have largely been appropriated by a tiny elite, often
tracing ownership to the era of the Conquistador, who have successfully
resisted any attempt to tax their wealth, or the rents that flow from
it. We don't need to elaborate on the consequences: the waste of scarce
resources, the regressive tax systems, the appalling inequality, and the
criminality, violence and insecurity that flows from it.

We already have a system of land taxation in this country. It is a
highly regressive form of taxation colloquially called Council Tax.

The case for taxing the "uneared income" from Land is compelling. At a
time when governments across the world face almost unprecedented
pressure to protect public services in the face of mounting fiscal
deficits, new solutions are required that do not involve imposing higher
taxes on low income households: Land Value Taxes are an idea whose time
has long since come.

Low income families don't pay either Income Tax or Council Tax. The
state doesn't charge the first and pays the second on their behalf out
of other peoples taxes.

Houses aside (possibly) the worth of land is in the profit that can be
made out of it. If the land is taxed for being land then its value will
be diminished by the cost of servicing the tax. In addition there is no
way you can value land that differentiates between that occupied by a
poor person and that occupied by a rich person except by location. A
hefty land tax would reduce the value of the expensive houses
considerably but I am sure the rich wouldn't quibble if the quid pro quo
was no Income Tax. For those of us with modest wealth our investment in
a roof over our heads represents most if not all of our gross assets.
For the filthy rich house prices can be little more than loose change. A
land tax that raises enough to replace Income Tax would cripple the
average householder. It is fashionable to whinge about fuel poverty but
nothing is ever said about Council Tax poverty which is a bigger problem
in that you just can't turn off Council Tax like you can the heating and
is just as likely to afflict those on low incomes and who aren't on
benefits.

To quote economist Henry George, one of the fathers of the Land Value
Tax campaign:

"I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what
land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that
they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a
man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.'

That is a pretty steep price for farm land in the 1870s when wages would
have been in the order of $1000 a year. Perhaps the man was just lying.
It would be ironic if the whole sorry edifice of Georgism was build on a
lie.

Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing
poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land
grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege."

"Henry George inspired the philosophy and economic ideology known as
Geoeconimics, which is that everyone owns what they create, but that
everything found in nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to
all humanity."

Bloody Merkin.

What Is Land Value Taxation?

Most of the things we see around us were made by man. The buildings we
live in, the vehicles we use, the clothes we wear and even most of the
food we eat are set in their present form by human effort.

Land is Completely Different.

No it isn't. Completely bogus argument.

No human being has made land, and the value of a piece of land derives
from such things as natural fertility, mineral deposits and its position
in relation to public utilities, natural harbours, communications and
population. Different pieces of land vary enormously in their value. An
acre of land in the middle of a town, for example, may be worth many
thousands of times as much as an acre of remote moorland. Therefore, a
tax on land values is a fair tax, because the person who owns land
derives benefit from something which he or she has not made.


We have no real wilderness in the UK. All landscape has been altered by
mans actions and that past work accounts for much of the value of rural
land. The value of building land lies in planning permission and
windfall profits could be usefully taxed if only to provide compensation
for those whose property values have been blighted by the new development.
In any event the distinction between natural land and manufacture is
bogus. The value of anything is ultimately what someone else will pay
for it.

The Big Idea

First off, the value of every piece of land in this country should be
assessed. By 'land' we mean the site alone, not counting any
improvements (the bricks of the house) on the site. Thus, the value of
any buildings, crops, drainage or anything else which people have put
on, or done to, the site would be ignored.
Then, after the land has been valued, a tax should be fixed on the basis
of that value. Of course this wouldn't mean any more overall taxation,
because the introduction of Land Value Taxation would permit other taxes
to be reduced or, in some cases, to be abolished altogether, such as
income tax.

The numbers just don't add up and that is before the case for farming is
considered. There is no region in the country where farm land on average
costs as much as £6000 an acre and hill land is commonly less than half
that. And even then the net yield is peanuts.

As it is most small farmers rely on subsidies to make any profit
whatsoever and almost all who owned their own land, pre credit crunch at
least, would have had a higher income had they sold that land at the
going rate and invested their money in index linked gilts. Any tax on
land would be the last straw for most farmers. As it is this country
can't feed itself and the way the world is going home grown food might
be all that is available to feed the population in the not too distant
future.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Why Is So Much Wealth in the Hands Of So Few?

Because that is the natural order of things.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

The tax system is both a contributory cause and a potential solution to
the problem.

Probably, but land taxation would just make matters worse.

Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, use it to great economic success.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

Even the most cursory examination of tax regimes in most countries will
show that Land - by which we mean the entire range of natural resources
used in the production of goods and services - is generally undervalued
and massively under-taxed. Take Latin America, for example, where natural
resources have largely been appropriated by a tiny elite, often tracing
ownership to the era of the Conquistador, who have successfully resisted
any attempt to tax their wealth, or the rents that flow from it. We don't
need to elaborate on the consequences: the waste of scarce resources, the
regressive tax systems, the appalling inequality, and the criminality,
violence and insecurity that flows from it.

We already have a system of land taxation in this country.

We do not. Council tax taxes the bricks. Put a conservatory on and they
charge you more. Income tax is also still charged. Council tax will tax a
flat in a block of 100. LVT only taxes the LAND.

The case for taxing the "uneared income" from Land is compelling. At a
time when governments across the world face almost unprecedented pressure
to protect public services in the face of mounting fiscal deficits, new
solutions are required that do not involve imposing higher taxes on low
income households: Land Value Taxes are an idea whose time has long since
come.

Low income families don't pay either Income Tax or Council Tax.

They do.
You are so thick it is beyond belief.

there is no way you can value land that differentiates between that
occupied by a poor person and that occupied by a rich person except by
location.

Is he getting it? we shall see.

A hefty land tax would reduce the value of the expensive houses
considerably

No he never. Sad. ALL LAND will be taxed. Those in the expensive locations
pay more as their land is worth more.

snip babble by Roger

What Is Land Value Taxation?

Most of the things we see around us were made by man. The buildings we
live in, the vehicles we use, the clothes we wear and even most of the
food we eat are set in their present form by human effort.

Land is Completely Different.

No it isn't. Completely bogus argument.

You are so thick it is beyond belief. Land is not being made any more.

Resources come from LAND
Products made from the resources of LAND
The LANDLORD take the rent

No human being has made land, and the value of a piece of land derives
from such things as natural fertility, mineral deposits and its position
in relation to public utilities, natural harbours, communications and
population. Different pieces of land vary enormously in their value. An
acre of land in the middle of a town, for example, may be worth many
thousands of times as much as an acre of remote moorland. Therefore, a
tax on land values is a fair tax, because the person who owns land
derives benefit from something which he or she has not made.

We have no real wilderness in the UK.

Land is land no matter where it is.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

The value of building land lies in planning permission

It doesn't it lies in its location. The PP is given by the community.

Land is land no matteer where it is.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

The Big Idea

First off, the value of every piece of land in this country should be
assessed. By 'land' we mean the site alone, not counting any improvements
(the bricks of the house) on the site. Thus, the value of any buildings,
crops, drainage or anything else which people have put on, or done to,
the site would be ignored.

Then, after the land has been valued, a tax should be fixed on the basis
of that value. Of course this wouldn't mean any more overall taxation,
because the introduction of Land Value Taxation would permit other taxes
to be reduced or, in some cases, to be abolished altogether, such as
income tax.

The numbers just don't add up

No numbers were given.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

Sad but true.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Why Is So Much Wealth in the Hands Of So Few?

Because that is the natural order of things.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

Since I am considerably more intelligent than you where does that leave you?

The tax system is both a contributory cause and a potential solution
to the problem.

Probably, but land taxation would just make matters worse.

Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, use it to great economic success.

Do they? And what proportion of GDP does their land taxation amount to?

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

See comment above.

Even the most cursory examination of tax regimes in most countries
will show that Land - by which we mean the entire range of natural
resources used in the production of goods and services - is generally
undervalued and massively under-taxed. Take Latin America, for
example, where natural resources have largely been appropriated by a
tiny elite, often tracing ownership to the era of the Conquistador,
who have successfully resisted any attempt to tax their wealth, or
the rents that flow from it. We don't need to elaborate on the
consequences: the waste of scarce resources, the regressive tax
systems, the appalling inequality, and the criminality, violence and
insecurity that flows from it.

We already have a system of land taxation in this country.

We do not. Council tax taxes the bricks. Put a conservatory on and they
charge you more. Income tax is also still charged. Council tax will
tax a flat in a block of 100. LVT only taxes the LAND.

You need to remember all the rubbish you have spouted in the past about
two thirds of the cost of a house being in the value of the land.
Judging by that graph you recently posted your 75% must be up to at
least 90% by now.

The case for taxing the "uneared income" from Land is compelling. At
a time when governments across the world face almost unprecedented
pressure to protect public services in the face of mounting fiscal
deficits, new solutions are required that do not involve imposing
higher taxes on low income households: Land Value Taxes are an idea
whose time has long since come.

Low income families don't pay either Income Tax or Council Tax.

They do.

So you say but you won't dare hazard any figures on that point.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

See comment above.

there is no way you can value land that differentiates between that
occupied by a poor person and that occupied by a rich person except by
location.

Is he getting it? we shall see.

A hefty land tax would reduce the value of the expensive houses
considerably

No he never. Sad. ALL LAND will be taxed. Those in the expensive
locations pay more as their land is worth more.

Yes, but the tax itself will mean the property is worth less and not
paying Income Tax at all will have the filthy rich laughing all the way
to Coutts and Co.

snip babble by Roger

What Is Land Value Taxation?

Most of the things we see around us were made by man. The buildings
we live in, the vehicles we use, the clothes we wear and even most of
the food we eat are set in their present form by human effort.

Land is Completely Different.

No it isn't. Completely bogus argument.

You are so thick it is beyond belief. Land is not being made any more.

Even that you can't get right. Volcanic eruptions are producing more
land in many places. Even here in the UK we have had in the recent past
(post war) farm land recovered from salt marsh and a few centuries
earlier much of Norfolk and Lincolnshire was drained and turned into
productive farmland that had no real value before draining.

Resources come from LAND
Products made from the resources of LAND
The LANDLORD take the rent

Some of us own our land but for the tenant it will only be a change for
the worse as the rent will go up to compensate the landlord for the tax
he has to pay.

No human being has made land, and the value of a piece of land
derives from such things as natural fertility, mineral deposits and
its position in relation to public utilities, natural harbours,
communications and population. Different pieces of land vary
enormously in their value. An acre of land in the middle of a town,
for example, may be worth many thousands of times as much as an acre
of remote moorland. Therefore, a tax on land values is a fair tax,
because the person who owns land derives benefit from something which
he or she has not made.

We have no real wilderness in the UK.

Land is land no matter where it is.

There is a world of difference between productive and unproductive land.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

See comment above.

The value of building land lies in planning permission

It doesn't it lies in its location. The PP is given by the community.

It doesn't matter where it is. No planning permission, no development.

Land is land no matteer where it is.

See comment above.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

See comment above.

The Big Idea

First off, the value of every piece of land in this country should be
assessed. By 'land' we mean the site alone, not counting any
improvements (the bricks of the house) on the site. Thus, the value
of any buildings, crops, drainage or anything else which people have
put on, or done to, the site would be ignored.

Then, after the land has been valued, a tax should be fixed on the
basis of that value. Of course this wouldn't mean any more overall
taxation, because the introduction of Land Value Taxation would
permit other taxes to be reduced or, in some cases, to be abolished
altogether, such as income tax.

The numbers just don't add up

No numbers were given.

You deliberately don't provide any as they will show without any doubt
whatsoever that they don't add up.

You are so thick it is beyond belief.

See comment above.

Sad but true.

What is sad is that you are wasting your time and ours by writing acres
of nonsense.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
news


Snip known tomfoolery by Roger. Roger is from Essex you know.