Well, the land tax proponents have been out in force at OLO recently.
I didn't expect this topic (by its header) to be another example.
As such, while I agree completely with the original thrust (ie governments paternalistic approach to extracting money from the flock - oops, electorate) I have reservations about the application of land taxes.
That said I wanted to give an example of my concerns that originally attracted me to this topic.
I read recently that my local council had debated whether they would give $5,000 or $10,000 to assist the bushfire victims in Toodyay.
Of course this is a worthy cause and one that I would encourage anyone to donate to - but do I think it is appropriate for people to be compelled to give money to a third party (who extract that money under penalty and ostensibly receive that money for an entirely different purpose) who then pass the money on to the bushfire victims (and thereby denies the benefit of atax deduction they might have received)? I don't think I do...
Money that is paid by way of rates to local councils is given (I believe) for a purpose and is thereby impressed with a form of trust - it must be used for the purposes of the council in providing services to that local government area. Anything else would be a breach of that trust.
Perhaps I am just crazy...

Seriously, not this pseudo-intellectual garbage again. You are now taking a shot at the Torrens system? Find a new issue.

David Jennings

Amen anything but to face the real problem ....the system.

Leigh,
Tell me what's the difference between a 'socialist' government and a 'Social Democratic' one and how does your comment relate to the topic?

Bryan,

Just curious, what has Wakefield's personal problems got to do with your topic?
As a crisis counselor I dealt with all manner of people but that doesn't mean I suffer from their problems.
Even sociopaths have good ideas.

BTW Show me any major Corporation who doesn't behave like a sociopath?

"BTW Show me any major Corporation who doesn't behave like a sociopath?"
Including government; as it has a legal monopoly of force and fraud, it behaves more sociopathicallly than other corporations who are subject to competition and to laws against deceptive conduct.

David, I was hoping you would be able to propound an <argument>, but once again I just find mere rhetoric. By “pseudo-intellectual garbage” I assume you mean the fact that 1/3 of one’s wages go to pay the rent or the mortgage (rather than being spent on investment, savings, schools, old age retirement, healthcare); urban sprawl, real estate boom and busts, collateral constraints, 40 000 vacant homes in Syd. and Melb. While there are 40 000 homeless people (including children) etc.

Leigh, indeed,please explain your random comment. Curiously, William Buckley (arch-conservative himself), along with Winston Churchill, J.S. Mill, Adam Smith, Locke all supported LVT.

Peter,
Thankfully we have the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation, which builds local improvements and extracts the revenue from local rents. I suppose it is less likely to act as a sociopath.

Seriously, why do I have to propound an argument? We went through this stuff a few weeks back and it got ripped apart. This guy is peddling a land tax idea - it has massive flaws in terms of proof, logic etc. The "carrot" is lower land prices if his land tax gets introduced and much less income tax. But thats not guaranteed.

I think I've almost articulated his argument better than he has! This article is a bit strange - for some reason theres a diatribe about an obscure English land-owner. You can almost imagine the people in Treasury reading a policy submission along these lines, chuckling, and then pinning it to the noticeboard.

In relation to your comment - how does an alleged 40,000 vacant homes correspond to 40,000 homeless in Sydney. Are you suggesting that we just put the "homeless" in other people's homes? We pay out enough money on welfare and mental health services.