>
Freedom the only End |
||
| Theft Taxation is theft. This story is as old as taxation. It is simple, if you take something from a person that does not belong to you then you are stealing. How many have actually signed away their “gift” to the public service and the politicians? Man precedes government and therefore has superior rights. But if government is a natural progression in our society there must be a source of revenue that does not break the basic tenets of law. “Thou shalt not steal” applies to government as well as the people. Land Value is the people’s value. It is the measure of societies demand for a particular site and a measure of the services, provided to that site, by both people as individuals and by society as a whole. The greater the services, and demand, and popularity of a given site the greater the value of that site. That value has nothing to do with the ownership, it is purely created by demand outside the control of the owner. It is reasonable to say that this value is truly a public value and can be harvested legitimately* by society for its use. The collection of this value would remove from government the perennial accusation of being robbers. It would bring about a better use of land and give a greater number of people access to the land and to the development of that land. This is a far cry from current taxation which penalises each and every activity in the production process. Effectively a brake upon production; a penalty for working. The acceptance of this type of taxation is widespread. As the propaganda goes “death and taxes are always with us.” We are working hard on the former so why not on the latter? Here we must recognise that the most sensitive nerve in the human body is the one that carries the wallet. Advocacy of taxation to achieve certain political aims does not help in the seeking of justice. A tax on Payrolls has the effect of reducing the payroll, especially in those borderline areas, and therefore retards progress. Parking fees and “congestion” charges fall into this category. They effectively reduce the value of a given site or area by restricting the people who can afford to visit that location. The Leichhardt & Waverly city councils (NSW) have tentitavely removed parking restriction for 15 minute periods on the cities main roads. The shopkeepers and shoppers are ecstatic. In Melbourne the city council introduced parking restriction in Lygon St., and have raised the ire of shopkeeper and motorist alike. Basically these fees are simply a tax, similar to a tariff, and the destructive content of that imposition is evident to all. It is trying to do by force what should happen naturally. The collection of the site rent (land value) for all land would alleviate this problem, ensuring that the rewards of societies activities was not reaped by the private landowner come shopkeeper. Then the congestion would not occur. This is the most basic aspect of the collection of site rent (land value). It would distribute the activities further across the community, relieving the producer (in this case the shopkeeper) from onerous taxation, and enable more people (motorists?) access without causing distress to others. *This is a reference to moral law not Statutory law. |
||
Environment Once again the story of the environmental movement is one of applying political force and punitive taxation procedures to what should be a simple matter of stewardship. The motives and outlook of these people should be closely examined. They bear strong relationship to the looney left in their political outlook. Certainly what they espouse is pure socialist policy; put in its simplest terms they advocate the state control not only of what industry does but what you, the producer and consumer, will spend your money on; don’t use too much electricity we don’t approve, don’t use too much water, we don’t approve; you should and must do this or that. Lenin never had so much support. The argument they put forward is spurious and peppered with sophistry. Environmentalists are firmly on the left of the political scene, their motivation is clearly singular - legislative control of everything ie. Socialism. |
||
Freedom. When he spoke the words opposite the author must have had high hopes. Today, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the use of “Terrorism” to put fear into people, the open threats to Russia by the Americans building missile bases and ever more powerful government it is reasonable to cry “Liberty Where are you?” Government has thrust its nose into every part of our lives. Britain, one of the most advanced countries for civil liberty has, under a Thatcher look alike called Blair, invoked some of the most draconian legislation ever produced - against its own citizens. Whatever happened to the Monarch? What has happened to the English speaking world? |
||
| We Work For Wages |
||
| Inflation: a spectre of the past? We have all heard of the subject. Newspapers have written reams about the subject. Economist have written volumes (all different, of course) about the dreaded inflation. And now, in 2008, we are faced with the problem again. There are few things to remember when discussing anything to do with economics. The subject refers to the most sensitive of human nerves, the hip pocket. So prejudice, ignorance and bigotry rule the day. Politics also aims to control economics. Wherever politics are involved one can expect lies, lies, obscurantism, abuse, more lies; you should know the story by now. Formidable forces to get around! History is a wonderful subject; things which bother us today are often (not always) things which bothered our ancestors and often (not always) they found a solution to. So how far back into history does inflation go? There was a Greek gentleman named Archimedes who was given a job by King Heiron II. The king thought he was being ripped off. His crown was supposed to be pure gold. He did not think it was. The job was to find out whether it was or was not. We all know the story of “Eureka!” Archimedes found out how to determine whether it was pure or adulterated. That was 2200 years ago. But how do you tell if a currency is adulterated? That something of lower value has been added to the good stuff? Who would or could do such a thing? All currency in Australia is a matter for the Federal Government. They design it and they issue it. The intrinsic value of the currency is nil. Those plastic notes we have in our wallets cost mere cents to produce and is only representative money. If the government went broke so would we. Such a system is easily abused and difficult to control because the people do not have any recourse but to use what the government determines is currency. So when you read in newspapers that the government is “awash with money” maybe it would be prudent to ask where they got it from? There are only two sources. Via taxation from the people or they printed some extra copies when they ran the presses. There are of course references to this in the Parliamentary records here in Australia, the UK and the USA, and probably many other countries. Effectively, when prices rise, as they are doing in Australia, as a general event, then the currency is being inflated. That is, the government is expanding its means of taxation. Those most affected are those on fixed incomes and living from savings and next are those struggling to keep their wages realistic. If we were able to freely convert to, and use, gold as currency this could not occur. But when politicians talk about free markets they do not appear to include its use for the common man, only their business friends. Trust money is never good. Trust money in the hands of government is an oxymoron. We should do something about it. Exchangeability would be a good start. |