• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Good time to bug your MP

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    ..

    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    No, win/win, because of the little land exchange deal. License to print money, as I told you.
    Ah yes, swapses

    Comment


      Actually, something similar to Robby's big idea was tried in the Belgian Congo. The king of Belgium decreed that his company owned all the land in Congo, then sold rubber production rights to the highest bidders, trampling all over the unwritten land agreements and conventions that the tribes had used for hundreds, or even thousands of years. Result was that the people who held the production rights used the king's private army and mercenaries to force tribes to tap more an more rubber, and if a tribe didn't achieve the rubber quotas the armies then hacked off people's hands, including those of children. Eventually, the locals got a bit peed off about this and the fact that only white Belgians were allowed to own land, so they revolted. Well OK I've taken a few shortcuts in Congolese history there, but it kind of illustrates what happens when you treat people and their land as nothing more than an economic resource. The Irish could tell you a few things about it too.



      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        Originally posted by speling bee View Post
        Not should be able to. Should it? Is that your policy? Land and mineral extraction to meet 100% of state income?
        About 95%.

        I would still have road tax for example, however the purpose of road tax would be to pay only for the servicing of the roads (100%) and nothing else.

        I'd probably keep inheritance tax too. Maybe there would be a few other fees or whatever that i'd consider.

        The idea is that the bulk would come from the LVT.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Robinho View Post
          About 95%.

          I would still have road tax for example, however the purpose of road tax would be to pay only for the servicing of the roads (100%) and nothing else.

          I'd probably keep inheritance tax too. Maybe there would be a few other fees or whatever that i'd consider.

          The idea is that the bulk would come from the LVT.
          Maybe? What fees would you consider? You mentioned alcohol and tobacco duty. In or out? What others?
          The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

          George Frederic Watts

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

          Comment


            You still haven't told us who's going to do all the valuations on all this land, or how they're going to do that.
            And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

            Comment


              Originally posted by speling bee View Post
              Maybe? What fees would you consider? You mentioned alcohol and tobacco duty. In or out? What others?
              I'm not a big fan of sin taxes. People should be free to drink as much or as little as they choose.

              Other taxes would be minor and not integral to the debate of LVT.

              If this is the list of UK taxes...



              Then i'd scrap them all apart from road tax (vehicle excise duty) and council tax.

              Council tax would be levied in the same way (on land value) just the the rate of tax and the way it was spent would be decided locally.

              I'm still undecided about carbon emissions tax.

              Comment


                You still haven't told us who's going to do all the valuations on all this land, or how they're going to do that.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  Mitch all your annoying questions have been answered in this thread (not necessarily by me)

                  Feel free to read this site for more answers...

                  Land rent for public revenue

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Robinho View Post
                    Mitch all your annoying questions have been answered in this thread (not necessarily by me)

                    Feel free to read this site for more answers...

                    Land rent for public revenue
                    You still haven't told us who's going to do all the valuations on all this land, or how they're going to do that.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      ...

                      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                      You still haven't told us who's going to do all the valuations on all this land, or how they're going to do that.
                      Or even how they are going to work out what taxable land there is. Even ONS does not yet produce that data even though they have had a recipient data set for it for years. Granted, I agree that it is finite as has been stated but no-one even knows how long the piece of string is so how they can project that it is workable is anyone's guess.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X