The 1909 Group - Comments

The best medicine

David Chester — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:05:31 +0100

Much as I would like to congratulate the managers of this website, it seems that it is being used to promote a whole list of strange-sounding drugs for commercial purposes. The above comments provide and demonstrate that the advantage of "anything goes" has not yet been eliminated. Were I to abuse the opportunity my words would still remain.

The fight against the squallor of the poor is the basic reason behing the use of this website and the best medecine that we have to offer is to tax land values. The resulting redistribution of fair wages throught the macroeconomy will enable many of the drug users and medicine takers to live better normal lives in happier conditions and circumstances and thus avoid the present-day deprivation of the poor about which most people turn a blind eye.

TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS.

Explaining about the Taxation of Land Values

David Chester — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:11:55 +0000

The above explanation is very brief and it misses out one important point (at least). The so called land-value tax is not really a tax at all, although it is often convenient to think of ot in this way. It is the collection of some of the rent due to the land having a value.

Land values are the result of two kind of simultaneous acting factors, a) the population density with its associated infra-structure (which is the result of tax-payers previous investment) and b) the natural bounty of the land due to its situation, mineral, vegetable or animal content as well as the space and proximity to population centers that it provides.

Due to the relative degree of these things, the ability of a site to enable the production of useful goods and serviecs, will vary enormously. Some land is so remote that it is scarcely able to support its working occupier and this land is called "marginal". Other land that is in a better location can allow its user to make a profit from his efforts at production.

This profit is called natural or economic rent. The profit as defined here is what is left from the value of the produce after deducting the yield (wrongly called the "interest") return on durable investment goods or capital (such as buildings and machinery), and after deducting the wages return for labour. Both of these quantities are determined by the competition for their availability and use.

The actual rent may not be collected at all in the case when the land is not used, or it may be greatly exaggerated by the land-lord as a rack-rent, when there is competition for land and no alternative on the part of the land-less worker or peasent.

By collecting some of the rent as a revenue, to be paid for the right to land ownership (regardless of the actual use to which it may be put), the government encourages the proper use of the land. Simultaneously this stops land speculation and its non-use or inefficient use. The tax burden from income tax etc can then be eased. These two changes result in more production and consumption and less poverty, due to the greater opportunities provided when the land is properly used and the redistributed incomes, more comming to the worker and less to one who is (inaccurately) called the capitalist.

However this explanation itself is limited and the whole subject is actually macroeconomics for which present-day descriptions and models are somewhat limited in their availability and scope, many missing out completely the importance of the land-value in the resulting equations and analysis and consequently being unable to provide accurate forecasts and explanations for such phenomena as the business-cycle etc.

Such a full explanation is possible and the author of this comment has in fact provided on in an unfinished book, which includes a model for our macroeconomic system. Please write to him at chesterdh@hotmail.com for the 150 page explanation he has presently available.

Fascinating and

Ian — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:23:06 +0100

Fascinating and illuminating. Wise words indeed from the great man. Keep up the superb work with this blog.

Read more of Churchill's words at http://www.winston-churchill-leadership.com/winston-churchill-speech.htm...

Nice idea...

webmaster — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:58:27 +0100

I was actually hoping to get the young Dan Snow to participate in something like this as a great-great-grandson of Lloyd-George and a representative of the generation most suffering at the moment. But I've yet to contact him about the idea. Lloyd-George's Limehouse speech about land tax and the 1909 budget was probably aimed at a more populist audience.

I did look to buy a copy of those early Churchill speeches, but if I recall correctly found them only available at upwards of a hundred pounds! But project Gutenburg has some of them.

I was also thinking about getting some masks done to wander around party conferences masked up as key figures like Churchill, Masterman, Lloyd-George and so on.

An Idea for Gaining Public Attention to the "Land Question"

ejdodson — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:46:32 +0100

We in the United States can be excused, to some degree, for not realizing there is a problem with land monopoly. We control a huge territory and (from the air or when driving) we see miles and miles of open space, not realizing that almost all of that land is owned by just a very small percentage of the population. And, in fact, much of the privately-owned land here is owned by corporations or foreign nationals. Another difference between us and you in the U.K. is your long history of struggle to reign in a very privileged, landed class.

It occurs to me that one way to reignite the land question as a serious political issue in the U.K. is to bring Winston Churchill's early speeches on the subject back to life. This could be achieved by finding an actor to portray Churchill delivering these speeches. The actor's portrayal would be followed by a discussion with the audience led by knowledgeable representatives of the Liberal Democrats.

For the greatest dramatic effect, live programs would seem to be best. However, by recording the portrayal to be shown all across the U.K., a large number of people could be reached within a short period of time.

There may be other key figures from the 1909 period who delivered similarly-powerful speeches in their day. This material could be reproduced in booklet form (as was Churchill's speeches in the pamphlet, "The Peoples' Rights").

I hope the above ideas are of some value in your extremely important effort to bring truly constructive change to the people of the U.K.

Edward J. Dodson, Director

School of Cooperative Individualism (U.S.A.)

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org

The new edtion of Progress & Poverty

ejdodson — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:28:10 +0100

I have read this new edition of George's classic analysis. The editors have done an excellent job of preserving George's insights, while simplying some of the language and removing historical references in which modern readers would find of little added value. This is a book that adherents to Henry George's ideas can pass on to others with confidence they will find the reading fully accessible.

Which publisher?

Tony Vickers — Wed, 30 May 2007 17:57:46 +0100

ALTER President Chris Huhne MP has agreed to write a Foreword to the book. He suggests that I should stick with CentreForum as publisher. The publisher who has offered to help me get the book out has a good track record of publishing books on LVT but not with a 'political' slant, whereas CentreForum is a recognised centre-left liberal think-tank with a strong presence at Lib Dem conferences. If I am going to have to subsidise the project, which should I go for? Comments welcomed.

My "Ignition" piece on LVT

Tony Vickers — Wed, 30 May 2007 17:46:31 +0100

The paper was written nearly 2 years ago, to inform the Lib Dem Tax Commission discussions. Whilst last year's TC, chaired by Mike Williams, made excellent progress staking out the 'route map' to UK 21st century LVT which my paper outlined, the grass has been allowed to grow around those stakes this year, with Dick Newby in the chair. Hardly any of the supporters of LVT attended TC meetings (there were other unrelated aspects of tax policy to be developed as well) and when the scheduled meeting on domestic property taxes came, Newby 'ambushed' me and ended the discussion before it had even begun. It appears that 'higher powers' within the Party decided months ago that taxing homes was something which Lib Dems must not do, the excuse being that it 'confuses the Axe The Tax' (scrap Council Tax) message. Yet there is no polling evidence that 'fairer property taxes' are less popular than taxes on earnings (of either labour or capital).

The only possibility of forcing a debate at this year's Lib Dem Conference on LVT is to table an amendment to the Motion in support of the TC report (which doesn't mention property tax at all, except to flesh out existing policy on replacing Business Rates with Site Value Rating). The main purpose of getting this paper updated and printed now is to enable it to reach as many Conference voting reps as possible in time for that debate. Prior to that, using this online version, we have to collect signatures in support of the ALTER/LVT amendment being debated at all.

It will cost me £3000 to get the paper printed and I would appreciate any contributions, either donations or pre-paid orders of copies. It will probably have a cover price of around £10 and I will take £5 for orders of 10 or more.