harry wrote:
Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Poll Tax isn'ty pay for what you get. Poll Tax is pay
flat rate regardless of what you get and regardless of
you personal circumstances. Widowed granny with no
children living on £90 a week pays exactly the same as
couple on £900 a week with thre children in school.

What you seem to want is service provision charges.
Family with two children pay twice as much as a family
with one child. Elderly widow pays for social services
but not for education. Coin slot on lamp-posts to only
pay to light the streets you use. Pay to use libraries.
If you live in a high crime area you may more for the
policing than a rich person who can afford to live in a
low crime area.

JGH

On 14/10/2012 16:09, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 13:24, SteveW wrote:
On 14/10/2012 07:50, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that. Start with exceptions like
children.

Who have no income and therefore could not be required to pay.

And that to some extent costs of council services are
property-size dependent.

Such as? General services provided to all are dependent upon number of
people, not property size. People don't use more street lighting,
policing, fire services, social services, roads, steet sweeping, etc.
because they have a bigger property, whereas they do when there are more
people.

And we are positively frugal in terms of waste
where others have overflowing bins every week/fortnight - and never take
things to the tip or separate out recyclable things. And on and on ...

They may have more disposable income or more people in the house and
therefore generate more waste, but that is a small proportion of the
charges levied and of course more people means more income to the
council on a poll tax basis.

The big problem with the poll tax was the way it was implemented, not
the basic idea.

For instance, at the time, I and my sister lived with my parents. When
the poll tax came in, my parents were worse off (how when they were
living in an average property and the number of people paying was
increasing dramatically?)

I was a lot worse off (fair enough), but my parents got transitional
relief for two years (IIRC) as they were paying more and so paid less
each than I did! Going from 0 to full payment didn't give any
transitional relief while a much smaller increase did - crazy!

My sister finished sixth form (in May) and was immediately chased by the
council for payment, despite her having no income and not being able to
even sign-on 'til September - the council considered her a non-student
immediately and the DHSS considered her a student until September!

Everyone paying the same for the same services is much better, with
reliefs or top-ups for those on low incomes. This has the benefit that
with everyone paying, no-one can vote for whichever party will give them
the most, without considering the additional costs that will fall on
everyone.

SteveW

Someone has to pay for children - and their costs to councils. Even if
they do not have the money in their hands.

Yes. That is simply set in the per adult charge - the council set a
budget and it is divided amongst all adults.

When Poll Tax was being talked about, the idea was put forward that if
there were, say, 100 people in a town then the council would get 100 *
poll tax as income. But in reality, they got maybe 75 * poll tax because
25 were non-paying children. (Those are simply illustrative numbers.) In
an area with many children the situation might have been worse; or, if
few children, better.

See above.

So the amount of poll tax per payer had to go up to cover those not paying.

See above. The error was in miscalculating in the first place, not in
the idea.

People DO use more services when they live in larger properties. On
average the amount of garden waste

Which is cheap to dispose of and in fact where composted and sold even
cheaper.

the distance rubbish collection vehicles have to drive

********. The houses are not all lined up on one straight road. The
difference in distance travelled is negligible in the scheme of things.

the amount of road and pavement.

To an extent, but any specific property could have a very narrow
frontage and residential streets (as opposed to main roads) receive very
little maintenance anyway.

the number of fire appliances required when they burn

For all but the largest properties, there is no difference - a band A
property and a band D will get exactly the same number of appliances.
Even the largest properties will get no more unless the fire gets out of
control.

the amount of street lighting to cover the longer frontages

See previous comment on road and pavement.

the amount of road salting required

Most residential streets are not salted or gritted at all, only the
transport routes are and the size of properties makes no difference to
the distance between point A and point B.

all these go up when properties are larger.

No, only a few of them do - and these are the ones that are not the
greatest costs within councils - housing, social services, home helps,
education are the big costs and mainly are related to number of people,
not property size.

SteveW

On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Large slice of council expenditure is education. Do the childless get a
discount?

Andy

Owain wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? Daily Mail tell you that?

I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.

Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up there,
excluding others, is quite shocking.

But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.

Or indeed anything much at all.

Owain



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/14/2012 3:10 PM, Owain wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? Daily Mail tell you that?

I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.

Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up there,
excluding others, is quite shocking.

But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.

And much is unsuitable for farming, too.

On 14/10/2012 21:00, Andy Champ wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Large slice of council expenditure is education. Do the childless get a
discount?

As long as they won't be relying upon the children of those who don't
remain childless to pay the tax needed to keep things running when they
are no longer working members of society.

SteveW

Owain wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers
buying colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? Daily Mail tell you that?

I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.

Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up
there, excluding others, is quite shocking.

But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.

Did the Daily Mail tell you that as well.

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:02:07 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:
That is resources in the ground, those who use the electromagnetic
spectrum, the seas, the sea bed, oil, gas & ores in the ground, etc.
One of the biggest forms of collectively created value that can be
reclaimed is land values. Landowners DID NOT create the value in
their land. Economic growth created by private and public economic
activity soaks into the land and chrysalises as land values. This is
reclaimed to pay public service with the knock-on effect of stopping
harmful land speculation eliminating booms & busts.

Then no Income Tax, sales Tax, Council Tax and other assorted stealth
tax tripe.

Did you run out of crayons this morning?

You are an idiot!

harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:49 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Good point. You are getting there. It also takes into account the
building, which is CAPITAL. Taxing a building is daft, like taxing
your washing machine. The building depreciates, the LAND appreciates
- a house price is the land and building value rolled into on. The
building (CAPITAL) is similar to a car - drops in value.

Not over here it doesn't. (UK)

What doesn't?

hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on
which you pay rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to
save arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its
own would be worth given current planning policies. If total value
(excluding your own home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax)
exceeds a certain amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your
income based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky
land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in
1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was
based on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living
in the house, rented it out.

Your comprehension is nil. Yes. What it did was reclaim the "value"
created by community economic activity that soaked into the ground
and crystallized as land values. The higher the land value the
higher the rental value.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done.

It taxed you on the increased values that soaked into the land which
you the landowner NEVER created.

Land Value Taxation makes people free. The fruits of their labours
are not taken in the form of Income Tax (a tax on production) and
Sales Tax (a tax on transactions - a tax on trade) - what we should
NOT be taxing.

You have no idea of economics whatsoever - a Daily Mail reader.

snip drivel

Have you noticed whenever the socialists are losing an argument they
always invoke the dreaded Daily Mail

I am not a Socialist.

harry wrote:

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

We have 70% of land in agriculuture. Much is paid by taxpers money to remain
idle.

As it is LAND Valuation Tax, the tax falls on the landowner only. If you
own no land you pay no tax. But you pay rent to a landowner.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value
assessment, will redress the problem in a very much more elegant
and fair manner and reduce or even eliminate destructive and unfair
Income and Sales Taxes if implemented fully. Land cannot be taken
offshore so the tax cannot be avoided.

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

Dribbler and his ilk probably own no land so would live on the back of
others.

Currently landowners are freeloaders not paying tax on the unearned gains.
Landowners live off the backs of the landless. Land Valuation Tax would
sort it out.

On Oct 14, 9:00*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Large slice of council expenditure is education. *Do the childless get a
discount?

Andy

I did get education. And so will the children. They pay for it later.

On Oct 14, 9:23*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor *Drivel" *wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? *Daily Mail tell you that?

I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.

Look at your own Scotland. *The amount of land owned by a few up there,
excluding others, is quite shocking.

But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.

Or indeed anything much at all.


OK for burying nuclear waste.

On Oct 14, 9:27*pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/14/2012 3:10 PM, Owain wrote: On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor *Drivel" *wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? *Daily Mail tell you that?

I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.

Look at your own Scotland. *The amount of land owned by a few up there,
excluding others, is quite shocking.

But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.

And much is unsuitable for farming, too.

Tch. Nonsense. High ground has always been used for sheep and cattle
everywhere.
What do you suppose they make haggis out of?

In article
, harry
wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:27 pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/14/2012 3:10 PM, Owain wrote: On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor
Drivel" wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers
buying colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? Daily Mail tell you that?

I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.

Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up
there, excluding others, is quite shocking.

But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.

And much is unsuitable for farming, too.

Tch. Nonsense. High ground has always been used for sheep and cattle
everywhere. What do you suppose they make haggis out of?

the Haggis is a bird that lives on the high ground. It isn't made out of
anything

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Owain wrote :
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers
buying colour tellies for people in council houses.

It's not. It's being spent on planning officers who spend endless
hours thinking up reasons why your proposal shouldn't be approved.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:35:00 +0100 Hugh wrote :
Revaluation on a regular basis would simply hike the tax regardless of
the occupants income. Those on fixed income would suffer most. The
only time value relates to income is when you buy the house in the
first place. So the logical thing to do would be to revalue on sale.

Revaluations in themselves don't change the amount of tax paid. Assume a
mythical authority that spends £1m and has 1,000 houses each valued for
rates purposes at £100K each. Total value of property = £100m so rates
are at 1p in pound, 100,000 x 0.01 = £1000 per property. Revalue to
£125K, poundage is now 0.8p, £125,000 x 0.008 = £1000.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value
assessment, will redress the problem in a very much more elegant
and fair manner and reduce or even eliminate destructive and unfair
Income and Sales Taxes if implemented fully. Land cannot be taken
offshore so the tax cannot be avoided.

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

Dribbler and his ilk probably own no land so would live on the back of
others.

Currently landowners are freeloaders not paying tax on the unearned
gains. Landowners live off the backs of the landless. Land Valuation
Tax would sort it out.

So. Do you own any land?


--
Tim Lamb

charles wrote:
In article
, harry
wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:27 pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/14/2012 3:10 PM, Owain wrote: On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor
Drivel" wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers
buying colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? Daily Mail tell you that?
I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.
Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up
there, excluding others, is quite shocking.
But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.
And much is unsuitable for farming, too.

Tch. Nonsense. High ground has always been used for sheep and cattle
everywhere. What do you suppose they make haggis out of?

the Haggis is a bird that lives on the high ground. It isn't made out of
anything

Nah, they're the immature form of the bagpipe. If you eat a haggis, you
help prevent bagpipe music.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

We have 70% of land in agriculuture. Much is paid by taxpers money to
remain idle.

Not currently. There are schemes to benefit wildlife which reward
managing land at low output levels. (agricultural set-aside was reduced
to zero some years ago)

As it is LAND Valuation Tax, the tax falls on the landowner only. If
you own no land you pay no tax. But you pay rent to a landowner.

So what about all those who own the freehold of their houses?



--
Tim Lamb

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:35:00 +0100 Hugh wrote :
Revaluation on a regular basis would simply hike the tax regardless of
the occupants income. Those on fixed income would suffer most. The
only time value relates to income is when you buy the house in the
first place. So the logical thing to do would be to revalue on sale.

Revaluations in themselves don't change the amount of tax paid. Assume a
mythical authority that spends £1m and has 1,000 houses each valued for
rates purposes at £100K each. Total value of property = £100m so rates
are at 1p in pound, 100,000 x 0.01 = £1000 per property. Revalue to
£125K, poundage is now 0.8p, £125,000 x 0.008 = £1000.

It seems you're not familiar with the mindset of British Local Government.

What would happen here is that the rate per pound of value would remain
the same, and the council would have more money to waste on new offices
and toys for their executives, and possibly more enforcement officers to
make sure the higher tax would be collected.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Owain wrote :
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers
buying colour tellies for people in council houses.

It's not. It's being spent on planning officers who spend endless
hours thinking up reasons why your proposal shouldn't be approved.

That is true.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

As it is LAND Valuation Tax, the tax falls on the landowner only. If
you own no land you pay no tax. But you pay rent to a landowner.

So what about all those who own the freehold of their houses?


As Drivel seems to be a tenant, or possibly a guest in one of Her
Majesty's fine institutions, as far as he's concerned, the only
landowners are landlords, who take delight in screwing the most they can
out of their tenants. If you've worked hard all your life and bought
your own home instead of renting, then you are, by definition, a
scrounging, greedy leech and you deserve all you get.

He also misses the point that a land value tax, as well as the cost of
administering it, will be passed on to all tenants.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value
assessment, will redress the problem in a very much more elegant
and fair manner and reduce or even eliminate destructive and unfair
Income and Sales Taxes if implemented fully. Land cannot be taken
offshore so the tax cannot be avoided.

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

Dribbler and his ilk probably own no land so would live on the back of
others.

Currently landowners are freeloaders not paying tax on the unearned gains.
Landowners live off the backs of the landless. Land Valuation Tax would
sort it out.

So. Do you own any land?

Yes, I am a freeloader like all other landowners. But I do know of a system
that would be better for society and also me. I would rather opay less
income, sales and other stealth taxes, than rely on land to cream off when
old. I would rather house prices were not ridiculous prices in a country
with a land suplus, then I could havea rather larger house that does not
cost the earth.

The current system is unfair and destructive and serves only the landed
gentry.

I have been reading economist Fred Harrison's book "The Predator Culture". A
good book and quite historical in the misuse of land. Fred goes on about the
colonial land grabs and all. Well they are sort of over - we think.

Fred does point out that private greed in the extraction of private land
rents is the cause of much death in the world. The German invasion of the
USSR in 1941 was that last great colonial land grab. The USA did it to their
west, The British did it via other means in the empire. Land grabs are
followed by private ownership of land and removal of the surplus
inhabitants.

He splits the current society into two:

1. The Predators (the rent seekers (mainly landowers) who use the effort of
others to accumulate riches)

2. The Producers - productive people.

The two are opposed, but it needs violence by the army and police keep them
together - walk on land unused for decades and setup home and then see the
men of violence eject you. Ironically land is owned by the The Queen, the
state. The situation has been with us for so long we now accept this as
normal.

Fred does point out that Marx concentrated on Capital as the evil. Marx's
critique of capitalism is very sound even today, why Marx never goes away.
over 95% of what Marx wrote was a critique of Capitalism.

Fred does point out that Marx, a critic of American Henry George who
advocated Land Valuation Taxation as the Single Tax, did actually home in on
land, which went over the heads of many, including Lenin. Fred did wonder
that if Marx had named Das Kapital, "The Monopoly of Land", the 20th century
may have been different, instead of an appalling century of systemic mass
killing (yet a century with phenomenal technological growth).

One good point is the interpretation of farming efficiency. The corporations
look to efficiency of capital in large factory farms, while labour is often
more efficient in small family holdings.

The 1870s depression led to the Africa land grab which then fell into WW1.
The 1929 crash was clearly a major factor in WW2. 2008? How long? China is
rattling over territory with the Philippines and Japan. Signs are there.

The rectify the problem is easy. Only use common wealth to pay for common
services, leaving people to keep all their earnings, eliminating the
parasite Predators.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

We have 70% of land in agriculuture. Much is paid by taxpers money to
remain idle.

Not currently. There are schemes to benefit wildlife which reward managing
land at low output levels. (agricultural set-aside was reduced to zero
some years ago)

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over
subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically
in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality homes for the
population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes.

The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its
food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers
in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and
distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt
having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the
greater good of British society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and
especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an
economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly
could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real
economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which
is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of
the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is
highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower
house prices which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be
within reach of much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large
recreation and construction industries, and keeping the population in touch
with the nature of their own country. In Germany the population have access
to large forests which are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are
ideal for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land
could be turned over to public forests.

As it is LAND Valuation Tax, the tax falls on the landowner only. If you
own no land you pay no tax. But you pay rent to a landowner.

So what about all those who own the freehold of their houses?

They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No Income tax
or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a owner/occupier man on £40K
per year when changing over to LVT would be approx £6-7K better off each
year. Then land prices will remain steady and people could afford bigger
and better homes at highly affordable prices.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

the only landowners are landlords, who take delight in screwing the most
they can out of their tenants.

That is exactly what they do. They chaneg as much as the market will allow.

If you've worked hard all your life and bought your own home instead of
renting, then you are, by definition, a scrounging, greedy leech and you
deserve all you get.

Someone 30 years ago who bought house for £100K and it is now worth say
£800K has made £700K for doing NOTHING. A freeloader. As a landower I am a
freeloader but have the intelligence to see that. I do not tell myself lies
and believe them.

He also misses the point that a land value tax, as well as the cost of
administering it, will be passed on to all tenants.

Impossible to pass on. If a landlord raises the rent it implies he was not
charging the maximum of he could get anyhow - which they do. Overcharge and
people move out. LVT CANNOT be passed on.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/frequent...passed-on.html

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/landlord.html

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Not_Passed_On.html

Those who hold land, unused, to speculate will put their money in enterprise
not a parasitical line. As happened in Denmark in the 1950s. Land gets
used to its maximum and productive use.

Finally there is the kilo of sugar example. If Harrods tries to pass on the
LVT of its site onto the goods it sells then the Deli round the corner with
a lower LVT will be able to sell sugar cheaper. VAT is universal - LVT is
applied on a graduated scale according to the annual rental value of the
site.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually
killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad.

Sheffield actually produces /more/ steel today that it has done in
the last half century. The difference is that is uses far far fewer
/people/ than in the past. The devastation of steel employment in
Sheffield initially sprang from local companies seeing each other
as their competitors instead of seeing Japan and Korea as their
joint competitor, and a reluctance to retool with equipment that
required fewer workers per unit of product. It took decades of
collapse, bankruptcy and mergers to produce the industry that
remains today, producing more but employing less.

JGH

wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually
killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad.

Sheffield actually produces /more/ steel today that it has done in
the last half century. The difference is that is uses far far fewer
/people/ than in the past.

Heavy steel production has now all but ceased in Sheffield. The actual
output of steel is greater than ever, however, it is now mainly stainless
and special steels. The overall steel industry in the UK is clearly down.
Look at the ugly mounds of scrap on the quayside of Liverpool, Southampton,
Teesside, etc being exported to Taiwan, etc to be melted down.

The devastation of steel employment in
Sheffield initially sprang from local companies seeing each other
as their competitors instead of seeing Japan and Korea as their
joint competitor, and a reluctance to retool with equipment that
required fewer workers per unit of product. It took decades of
collapse, bankruptcy and mergers to produce the industry that
remains today, producing more but employing less.

It was cheaper to import a ton of finished knives and forks than make a ton
of raw steel in Sheffield.

The tonnage figures gives a false impression of progress. The fact is that
Thatcher allowed off-shoring of manufacturing to the far east to suppress
the Labour aspect of the free-market. She rigged the free-market. American
Prof Michael Hudson stated that British industry was ruined by the constant
obsession of suppressing labour costs for over 100 years - rigging the
free-market.

This is an explanation of why the Credit Crunch occurred and Thatcher/Reagan
are way in there as causal links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

The point was that essential steel, and other industries, were allowed to
die but land is protected to the hilt lining the pockets of parasites.
These parasites have strong political influence and control.

On 15/10/12 09:23, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:35:00 +0100 Hugh wrote :
Revaluation on a regular basis would simply hike the tax regardless of
the occupants income. Those on fixed income would suffer most. The
only time value relates to income is when you buy the house in the
first place. So the logical thing to do would be to revalue on sale.

Revaluations in themselves don't change the amount of tax paid. Assume a
mythical authority that spends £1m and has 1,000 houses each valued for
rates purposes at £100K each. Total value of property = £100m so rates
are at 1p in pound, 100,000 x 0.01 = £1000 per property. Revalue to
£125K, poundage is now 0.8p, £125,000 x 0.008 = £1000.

But only if the poundage is revalued also; it is possible but in
practice the opportunity to grab a little more tax is so hard to resist.
And unless the relative value of every property remains the same there
will be some winners and some losers. Which catches people out when the
revaluation is of a nominal value that bears no relation to actual income.
As Hugh suggests, revaluation on sale has the advantage of matching the
valuation to current circumstances. Although it may also create a
'wealth trap', akin to the realisation of capital gains.

--
djc

harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:27 pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/14/2012 3:10 PM, Owain wrote: On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.
They do? Daily Mail tell you that?
I used to work in local government and processed the purchase orders.
Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up there,
excluding others, is quite shocking.
But most of it is completely unsuitable for housing.
And much is unsuitable for farming, too.

Tch. Nonsense. High ground has always been used for sheep and cattle
everywhere.

Onluy if it t actually grows grass.

Much of Scoptland is lowland BOG and upland ROCK. deer or goats that
browse trees and scrub are the only possible thing apart from mebbe
grouse...

What do you suppose they make haggis out of?

I shudder to think.

Porage mainly and old socks, judging by the taste.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


I shudder to think.

Porage mainly and old socks, judging by the taste.

Lungs are yummy - and if the scots did not put them in haggis, they's only
end up in pork pies!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

On Oct 15, 10:23*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message

...









In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value
assessment, will redress the problem in a very much more elegant
and fair manner and reduce or even eliminate destructive and unfair
Income and Sales Taxes if implemented fully. Land cannot be taken
offshore so the tax cannot be avoided.

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

Dribbler and his ilk probably own no land so would live on the back of
others.

Currently landowners are freeloaders not paying tax on the unearned gains.
Landowners live off the backs of the landless. Land Valuation Tax would
sort it out.

So. Do you own any land?

Yes, I am a freeloader like all other landowners. *But I do know of a system
that would be better for society and also me. I would rather opay less
income, sales and other stealth taxes, than rely on land to cream off when
old. *I would rather house prices were not ridiculous prices in a country
with a land suplus, then I could havea rather larger house that does not
cost the earth.

The current system is unfair and destructive and serves only the landed
gentry.

I have been reading economist Fred Harrison's book "The Predator Culture".. A
good book and quite historical in the misuse of land. Fred goes on about the
colonial land grabs and all. Well they are sort of over - we think.

Fred does point out that private greed in the extraction of private land
rents is the cause of much death in the world. The German invasion of the
USSR in 1941 was that last great colonial land grab. The USA did it to their
west, The British did it via other means in the empire. Land grabs are
followed by private ownership of land and removal of the surplus
inhabitants.

He splits the current society into two:

1. The Predators (the rent seekers (mainly landowers) who use the effort of
others to accumulate riches)

2. The Producers - productive people.

The two are opposed, but it needs violence by the army and police keep them
together - walk on land unused for decades and setup home and then see the
men of violence eject you. Ironically land is owned by the The Queen, the
state. The situation has been with us for so long we now accept this as
normal.

Fred does point out that Marx concentrated on Capital as the evil. Marx's
critique of capitalism is very sound even today, why Marx never goes away..
over 95% of what Marx wrote was a critique of Capitalism.

Fred does point out that Marx, a critic of American Henry George who
advocated Land Valuation Taxation as the Single Tax, did actually home in on
land, which went over the heads of many, including Lenin. Fred did wonder
that if Marx had named Das Kapital, "The Monopoly of Land", the 20th century
may have been different, instead of an appalling century of systemic mass
killing (yet a century with phenomenal technological growth).

One good point is the interpretation of farming efficiency. The corporations
look to efficiency of capital in large factory farms, while labour is often
more efficient in small family holdings.

The 1870s depression led to the Africa land grab which then fell into WW1..
The 1929 crash was clearly a major factor in WW2. 2008? How long? *China is
rattling over territory with the Philippines and Japan. Signs are there.

The rectify the problem is easy. Only use common wealth to pay for common
services, leaving people to keep all their earnings, eliminating the
parasite Predators.

There is no land surplus dopey.
The reason there is a housing shortage is because of immigrants.
They are all living somewhere.

On Oct 15, 10:53*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message

...

In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

We have 70% of land in agriculuture. Much is paid by taxpers money to
remain idle.

Not currently. There are schemes to benefit wildlife which reward managing
land at low output levels. (agricultural set-aside was reduced to zero
some years ago)

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over
subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically
in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality homes for the
population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes.

The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its
food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)..
CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers
in a poor performing industry. *In effect that is its prime function.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and
distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt
having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the
greater good of British society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. *We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and
especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an
economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly
could be better used? *What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

On Oct 15, 11:45*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

Doctor Drivel wrote:
The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually
killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad.

Sheffield actually produces /more/ steel today that it has done in
the last half century. The difference is that is uses far far fewer
/people/ than in the past.

Heavy steel production has now all but ceased in Sheffield. The actual
output of steel is greater than ever, however, it is now mainly stainless
and special steels. The overall steel industry in the UK is clearly down.
Look at the ugly mounds of scrap on the quayside of Liverpool, Southampton,
Teesside, etc being exported to Taiwan, etc to be melted down.

The devastation of steel employment in
Sheffield initially sprang from local companies seeing each other
as their competitors instead of seeing Japan and Korea as their
joint competitor, and a reluctance to retool with equipment that
required fewer workers per unit of product. It took decades of
collapse, bankruptcy and mergers to produce the industry that
remains today, producing more but employing less.

It was cheaper to import a ton of finished knives and forks than make a ton
of raw steel in Sheffield.

The tonnage figures gives a false impression of progress. The fact is that
Thatcher allowed off-shoring of manufacturing to the far east to suppress
the Labour aspect of the free-market. She rigged the free-market. *American
Prof Michael Hudson stated that British industry was ruined by the constant
obsession of suppressing labour costs for over 100 years - rigging the
free-market.

This is an explanation of why the Credit Crunch occurred and Thatcher/Reagan
are way in there as causal links.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

The point was that essential steel, and other industries, were allowed to
die but land is protected to the hilt lining the pockets of parasites.
These parasites have strong political influence and control.

http://www.issb.co.uk/uk.html

Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No Income
tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a owner/occupier man on
£40K per year when changing over to LVT would be approx £6-7K better off
each year. Then land prices will remain steady and people could afford
bigger and better homes at highly affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away with
as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax as the
only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as it is now,
or, if they think they can get away with it, greater. Therefore, on
average, we would all be paying at least the same amount of tax as now.
The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the people
paid to assess the new tax.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up paying
the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how well
disguised this is.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 15/10/2012 08:14, harry wrote:
I did get education. And so will the children. They pay for it later.

It doesn't work like that. The teachers, for example, don't wait 20
years to get paid.

Andy

On 15/10/2012 10:30, Doctor Drivel wrote:
The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its
food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

Have you noticed what is happening to global food prices?

On 15/10/2012 18:37, harry wrote:
There is no land surplus dopey.
The reason there is a housing shortage is because of immigrants.
They are all living somewhere.

That'll be all the Polish builders will it?

Incidentally many developers have large "land banks" - they buy land,
then build on it later when the value has inflated.

Andy

On 15/10/2012 10:23, Doctor Drivel wrote:

He splits the current society into two:

1. The Predators (the rent seekers (mainly landowers) who use the effort
of others to accumulate riches)

2. The Producers - productive people.

OK, Dribble, so I own my own house and another property which I rent
out. Obviously I'm a predator.

I work in a normal job, which incidentally mostly sells overseas, and I
make no profit from any property I own. Obviously I'm a producer.

I suppose I could hit myself over the head with a bottle...

Andy