Mark wadsworth killer arguments against lvt, not (448) gas out game rules


– Local councils start large scale council house building in the 1920s and 1930s, offering decent housing to working and middle class families for a fraction of what they are paying private landlords. Working and middle class families: "We want none of your truck! Us paying half our wages in rent is our landlords’ best bulwark against state tyranny!"

3. Public spending creates and sustains location values, and some locations benefit a lot and some not at all. So funding public services by levying a charge on those sites which benefit most from public spending is fair as between different landowners and is of course based on the explicit assumption that land is privately owned. o gosh LVT and land ownership go hand in hand. To say that LVT negates the existence of private landownership is nonsense.

4. LVT is largely an economic thing. so let’s look at economic tyranny. chapter 7 electricity Land owners benefit from public services; public services cost money; so taxes have to be levied to fund them. It is clearly state tyranny if one group (workers, businesses and consumers) are paying all the taxes to fund public services and the benefits all accrue to a different group (land owners). The fact that half the population are in both categories (i.e. working owner-occupiers) detracts nothing from this point – people moan about all the tax they pay but celebrate rising house prices. Far better to cut out the middleman.

5. Implicit in Sobers’ claim is the notion that land-owners are protected from ‘state tyranny’, but what about tenants? Are your children who start their first job and rent somewhere somehow less deserving of protection against state tyranny than you are? Do landlords selflessly pass on the protection from state tyranny to their tenants? Nope, they charge them full whack for the privilege of accessing public services, with the state (courts, bailiffs) acting as enforcers on their behalf.

6. The private/personal right to exclusive occupation of specific land and buildings is of course fundamental to a modern capitalist society. There is a huge net benefit to it. gas ks But is that net benefit fairly distributed? Clearly not. Tenants are paying twice; once in tax and again in rent. That is exactly the same tyranny as perpetrated by the Normans, it’s the same iron first but in a velvet glove.

When the right to vote was extend to non-landowners in the UK in 1918 (about one-third of men and two-thirds of women didn’t have the vote until then) that increased the freedom of all the newly enfranchised to take part in democratic decision making. By definition, it reduced the powers/freedom of landowners (mainly men) to decide government policy. Overall, it was an increase in freedom/reduction in state tyranny.

Similarly, while funding public services out of levies on land values instead of taxes on output and earnings reduces the freedom of landowners (the freedom to exploit workers and businesses twice over), it increases the economic freedom of a far larger group. shell gas credit card 5 Our median voters – working owner-occupiers – are net winners as their tax bills will fall and disposable incomes will increase. So overall, a win for economic freedom and reduction in state economic tyranny (forced transfers of wealth from a large group of ‘hard working families’ to a small group of what are effectively welfare claimants).

– Over the centuries, western European governments have gradually relinquished control. Until the 18th or 19th centuries, minor crimes, primarily those against landowners such as trespass or poaching, were routinely punishable by death. The death penalty is now more or less a thing of the past in developed countries (the USA is an outlier).

I should more accurately have said that private land ownership enforceable by an independent judiciary is a huge bulwark against State tyranny. The first act of any tyranny is to remove the ability of the individual to own and control land, because owning land gives an individual power against the predations of the State, and any would be dictator needs to remove that power as a first step to dominating the population.

Of course not, because there is no such thing as a ‘regulated non governmental body’ that a) isn’t under the control of the State in some way, or b) doesn’t over time develop a political ideology and aims of its own. Imagine the power that the people appointed (by who?) to run this ‘independent’ body would have. gas 99 cents a litre There would be similar arguments as to what happens in the US over the appointment of their Supreme Court judges – its politics masquerading as an independent judiciary. Any body that had such power would need democratic control and that brings us back to State power controlling things.

The state already has the power to evict you from your land if you owe them money that you cannot pay, because you haven’t paid some of the taxes that are already in force. They can make you sell your land to pay the debt. Also your use of the phrase "liable to eviction" implies that you are thrown off your land the freehold of which then becomes the property of the state. AFAIK, no-one is advocating that the only recourse that the state would accept for non-payment of LVT is surrender of the landholding the debt has been incurred on. A debt to the state due to non-payment of LVT would be treated like any other debt, payable by any means available, just like debts to the state currently are, but I suppose that doesn’t fit with your state as landlord scenario.

So while LVT reduces the ‘freedom’ of land speculators, sellers and landlords, it puts everybody (land owners, tenants, mortgage borrowers, taxpaying workers and businesses) on a level playing field. gasbuddy va If one group can only gain freedom by restricting the freedom of others, then it’s a net reduction in overall freedom (hence the slave owner/slave example).