Monday, 4 October 2010

This cheered me up (2)

Over at The Economic Voice.

My latest blogpost: This cheered me up (2)Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 13:00

Labels: ,

7 comments:

Lola said...

Only instead of handing over all the rent or purchase price to the current owner, the location value would go to the government.

You need to be a bit more careful with your words, methinks. Don't use 'government' when you mean 'State'. I thought that the whole point of LVT was that it captured the rent for the State, that is the citzen.

Thing is, if you are going to gte anywhere advocating LVT you need to mkake sure that everyone understand the underlying realities, and make it clear that the LVT (State rent if you like) goes back in to buy State stuff for the citizen.

Hope that helps.

(I'm a good rep. and words do change the thing)

4 October 2010 at 14:58
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, indeed. In my entirely naive world view, 'the government' is merely that part of 'the State' which is a mutually owned service provider, the main part of 'the State' is 'society in general' i.e. 'people'.

4 October 2010 at 15:38
Jeff Taylor said...

An excellent piece Mark, thanks for your views.

Like your strap line! You could use "WARNING - Your bank may be directly subsidised by your taxes if they decide to fritter money away on bad investments, bonuses and champagne parties".

4 October 2010 at 16:21
Onus Probandy said...

I thought this was excellent.

It addressed all the first pass complaints that people unfamiliar with LVT would have.

Over the last few months you have persuaded me that LVT would be a good thing -- and in particular, that there are sound answers to all the "it won't work because..." type of objections. I don't think I'm in any way special, so I believe that many others, if they understood would be persuaded too.

4 October 2010 at 16:45
Mark Wadsworth said...

JT, OP, my pleasure. As to "It won't work...", the fall back response is "Yeah, it's not perfect, but aren't income tax or VAT even worse?"

4 October 2010 at 17:18
Paul Lockett said...

MW, nice work.

Lola, I tend to view the implications of the words "government" and "state" as something quite different to that, in much the same way that Nock used them. A government would be a genuine representative of the people, whereas a state is nothing more than a protection racket writ large. I view the state as something very separate from and opposed to the citizenry.

4 October 2010 at 19:02
AntiCitizenOne said...

Lola,
I always say that the LVT should be paid to the "Crown", and the state take a bit for their stuff.

4 October 2010 at 21:14

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)