View RSS Feed


Families on lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
[COLOR="black"][FONT="Verdana"][B]THE PROBLEM[/B]

[INDENT][INDENT]Three million children today are living in poverty. Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social mobility. Successions of governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax system. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
Are politicians to blame?
[INDENT][INDENT]The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago by the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land. Governments used the tax system to milk the poor. The injustice has never been put right. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
Why did the Lords, Barons and Knights do it?

[INDENT][INDENT]To enrich the people who own land. It is operated by all democratic governments around the world. The biggest winners are those who own land or homes in the best locations.

People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government. People who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police, rail, roads, army, etc. That sounds fair. They pay for what they receive.

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes. The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
That sounds fair. Doesn't it?

[INDENT]Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive taxes. Sounds fair as the richer pay more. [u]But!!! Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect[/U].

[B]Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government. But, the government pays it all back to them. [/B][/indent]
How do they do this?
[INDENT]Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as:
[list][*]Schools[*]Universities[*]Hospitals [*]Rail networks [*]Roads[/list]
This infrastructure raises the productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the property market.

Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us, as the taxpayers who rent their homes for example, are excluded.
The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land. The rises in property values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse.[/INDENT]
Then who pays for the services the rich people use?

[INDENT]The families on the lowest incomes.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they contribute. [U]During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes in just three years[/U]. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent, pay more overall.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.[/INDENT]
Is that fair?

[INDENT]There is only one way to make the tax system fair. Parliament has to tell the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.

We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George nearly introduced in Parliament 100 years ago. But, the landlords blocked them.

[B]The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British landlords.[/B][/INDENT]
If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public services?

[INDENT]By levying a charge on the [I]value[/I] of land. People who live in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to fund the service we all share in common.[/INDENT]

There is a simple solution to this injustice.
[list][*]We should place the cost of public services on [U]the [I]values[/I] of land[/U].[*]Remove Income tax from people's wages.[*]Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their homes.[*]Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw back their taxes. [/list]
That way everybody pays for the services they receive and we are all treated as equals[/FONT][/COLOR]

Submit "Families on lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich" to Digg Submit "Families on lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich" to Submit "Families on lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich" to Google Submit "Families on lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich" to Facebook

Tags: lvt, tax Add / Edit Tags


  1. Debra's Avatar
    In reality though WW, will this ever happen ?
  2. Waterways's Avatar
    There are moves to make it happen primarily in the USA, UK and Auss. Pittsburgh used it to get rid of vacant lots. It worked. Liverpool wanted it but the government turned them down. Joshua Vincent of The Center for the Study of Economics in Philadelphia came over to Liverpool to advise on LVT.

    LVT is getting bigger and bigger following once people understand it, which is not difficult. The precursor of the board game Monopoly, was the Landlord's Game, named 'Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit' in the UK. The board game was designed to teach people the theories of Henry George. Landlords Game

    LVT, does not change anything. No Communism, no Fascism, or any other ism. People still own land, business operates the same. Just a tax shift to where it should be - on values of land. An old idea put forward by economists: Adam Smith, Ricardo and Henry George. 100,000 attended Henry George's funeral in New York, the movement was so strong. It has been snuffed out of our psyche and airbrushed from history

    The Lib-Dems have SVR on the manifesto. Site Value Rating (SVR, local LVT) instead of Council Tax. It is primarily used to fund infrastructure, so do the Greens. A good start. The Labour Land Group lobby also propose Land Value taxation.

    The reason it does not happen was because of the House of Lords, who can delay bills. They stopped it in 1909 with Winston Churchill. Lloyd George reduced their power because of it. By the time they could get it back on line WW1 came along. Depressions and world wars have stopped its implementation and another is that it has been taken off the radar by the powerful with media influence. We do not talk of land, only houses. We are told we are short of land when only 7.5% of the land mass is settled. Ask why?

    Do not underestimate the act of Tony Blair ejecting the 66 hereditary peers from the House of Lords (landlords). This paves the way for such tax legislation. A great constitutional change.

    Labour’s 1931 budget included LVT but was repealed by the Conservatives before it was launched - a coalition government because of the depression. Conservative MPs also defeated Herbert Morrison’s 1939 bill introducing Site Value Rating (SVR, local LVT) for the London County Council.

    LVT is now being recognised. Richard Rogers’ “Urban Task Force” called for a study of LVT. Kate Barker, in her housing review, drew attention to LVT as “a good method of raising revenue, without distorting behaviour”. Recent articles in the FT, and the Guardian have promoted LVT. It has supporters across the political spectrum from socialists, liberals and the right. Liverpool City Council have asked to be a trial area for SVR. The Scottish Parliament are researching it. Oxfordshire County Council are assessing land values in a trial area. Researchers are valuing Whitstable and Transport for London, Dept for Transport and RICS are assessing land values around transport infrastructure schemes.

    In true LVT you pay no:
    • Income tax
    • Council Tax or SVR
    • Capital Gains
    • Inheritance tax
    • Tax on savings

    Being defeatist is not the way. The more who understand and tell others the better.
  3. Waterways's Avatar

    Income tax is a tax on your earnings - your work. It penalises your productivity. It is a destructive tax sometimes called bad taxes. Income tax is as daft as the window tax.

    Full Geoism is no income tax only taxation on the values of the land not the building.
    Corporation tax may still apply.
    Geoism is highly capitalistic - with no boom and busts so stable.

    What the left hate about the capitalist system with justification is:
    • The boom and busts
    • It needs excessive control
    • The wealth ends up with a few people.
    • A layer of poverty is created, which is out of proportion to the collective wealth of the nation.

    Geoism is self controlling to a large degree and spreads wealth around more evenly. It promotes economic production and growth.

    If someone lives in an area of high land values and their income has decreased and they can't afford their taxes, then they sell up as per usual and move to a cheaper area.

    Values soak into land, the values get higher. If there is a shortage of washing machines at £300 each, makers can make more to maintain the price at £300. If land prices rise in a city centre, you can't make more land in the city centre.

    The land fuelled boom & bust cycle, which may turn to a crash (slump/crash is in bold):
    1. When the economy is rising, economic progress occurs.
    2. Quantity of goods increases because of labour and capital (capital is machines, etc, made by man).
    3. The land supply remains the same. Demand for land increases, land supply remains static it cannot be made like consumer goods.
    4. Result: increase of land prices.
    5. Speculators are looking for a place to store the value of their money and increase the value.
    6. Land, is increasing in value over time, is an attractive "investment"
    7. Speculative demand shifts demand for land up.
    8. Land prices rise more.
    9. Artificially high land values mislead landholding consumers into thinking they have more wealth than they actually have. Home owners see their land/house value rise, spurring additional consumer spending - the wealth effect.
    10. This results in a temporary increase in the standard of living
    11. Speculative demand for land increases yet more in response to the price increases, raising the land price again.
    12. However, land prices have now risen above a rate many potential wealth producers can afford - manufactures, services, people who need homes to live, etc.
    13. The market flattens
    14. Some businesses fail
    15. At this stage, businesses fail without being replaced.
    16. High land prices prevent potential business replacements.
    17. The most recent speculative land buyers begin to have a hard time selling at a price that justifies the original purchase, due to a fall in economy productivity.
    18. Prices remain steady as landholders attempt to ride out the slump
    19. Because the slump is caused by the high land prices, it cannot end until prices collapse back to a level that can be sustained by economic producer demand.
    20. Land (house) owners find themselves in negative equity as the land (house is worth less than what they owe banks.
    21. Many land (house) owners cannot pay their debts to banks.
    22. Banks who lent money for land (houses) cannot retrieve their owed money.
    23. Banks do not have enough money to lend to productive economic growth businesses.
    24. Banks call in loans to productive economic growth businesses.
    25. Many productive economic growth businesses go under.
    26. Productive economic growth businesses slow down.
    27. Demand for land is removed as speculators move out of the land market.
    28. Land prices drop and being within reach of economic producers, the economy begins to grow again.

    Spiralling land prices are the early warning signs of a bust.

    Land Value Tax with no Income Tax:
    • Taxing the value of land stops land speculation and land prices running out of control, preventing financial crashes.
    • Money is directed to invest into economic growth industries, not land, which does not make the economy grow.
    • Removing income tax makes people productive as they not are penalised.
    • Taxing land values gets at the values of the economy that soak into the finite supply of land.
    • Taxes extracted from Land Values can be used to provide essential economic growth infrastructure.
    • The infrastructure makes a community more economically productive.
    • The infrastructure makes land more desirable and in demand.
    • Those in districts with high land values because of the community paid for infrastructure via their taxes pay more Land Value Tax
    • Those is districts where land is not in demand pay less Land Value Tax.
    • The system prevents:
      1. Boom & busts
      2. High housing prices - housing is affordable
      3. Social housing paid for by taxpayers - the private sector copes with housing.
      4. Concentrations of wealth by the few - Distributes wealth more evenly
      5. Land hoarding - Re-distributes land automatically as "all" land is taxable
    • Tax collection is easy and cheap as land is fixed - it cannot be taken off-shore or moved. The tax cannot be dodged.
    • The tax burden is less as the economy is stable and grows.
    • Tax burden is reduced - virtually no taxpayers money is put into social housing as the private sector copes with housing.

    The three economic basics (land is different to the other two):
    1. LAND (Can't be made - in finite supply)
    2. LABOUR (in much supply)
    3. CAPITAL (what men make. Can be made and more of if needed)

    The values of Labour + Capital means the values soak into the land - that is what you tax.

    You want a piece of wood to be a hanger for your coat.
    • LAND (the tree stands on the land)
    • LABOUR (your effort in cutting the wood from the tree.
    • CAPITAL (Man made - the saw to cut the wood from the tree)

    The hanger needs all three.
  4. Waterways's Avatar