mikk>>Why shouldnt landowners be taxed?
Especially rich and absentee ones.>>

a good question, as to why [because the land tax isnt legal [nor lawfull]..if you want to tax them then change the constitution,

note the other point made[re-divergent laws]where laws are divergent they fall under fed juristiction [and the fed constitution dont allow it either]

so no matter how good we think it is [its just not lawfull]
but no lawyer is going to change it because some lawyer wrote it
so its functionally legal,..lol its funny really [we dont even have constitutional law ,makes it more funny[because you non lawyer got no idea..lol

[the prost-cute-tution of the matter is as a claimed land-owner you fall under the powers of the act,..lol, because you fall under the act you use to claim your rights of landholding [because you applied to fall under the act by the documents you thought gave you the land ..lol, but it made you subject to the act [because applies means beg[your presumed you know what you begged[app-lied]for lol

its the main reason jesus said do not take oath
matt 5;3-48 ,matt23;16-24..james 5;12..[when you sign ANYTHING its an oath]do not take the mark [mean's dont sign your oath]

[subject means ...liable to the parts of the act that taxes 'landowners , as described UNDER the act...lol...[but its still unconstitutional]..legal but unlawfull, but you begged it by signing the papers those lawyers said to sign

[see in real; constituted law [and under common and even criminal law you need a victim to have legal standing[no victim no crime] ,but under statuted law you fall under the laws of con-tract, well you signed the contract when you applie

its the same reason you fall subject to those other legal [but unlawfull ] and unconstituted acts[you signede just joined the club [and are charged by violation of the acts [rules of the club you app-lied into

thus apply for a licence you joined the club that makes you subject to the rules of commerce on the road[see a vehicle is used to earn income from trade[same with licence is only required to do buisness[as you gave yoyr licence numbe4r you fell under the act[desp[ite no legal standing [you appliued to join the club..lol] thus are subject to the club rules

same paying tax [you begged]underr your oath to be a tax payer [you declared your wage income[but wage isnt income [but you signed oath it is..lol[it is presumed no one assumes a burdon, thuis no one tells you [but jesus tried, he clearly said dont sign oath [not on conm-tract nor any other [

but you thought lawyers know better, ha they are club members [servants of the courts ], to get a lawyer you attain the standing of imbisile..[a legal term meaning not capable of handeling your own affairs ..lol

just as these lands were took from imbisiles and lunatics [king georges very words to phylip, first commision..read your foundation documents]

but hey you latest tv drama is on go watch tv [its a vision you can be decieved into believing in], but its all fiction, but your lives appear to be fictions too..[you just think its all real]..because you dont know jesus tried to teach you, but you know better ...lol

Here we go again...

Peter the Believer objects to people paying tax "simply because the land values around them have risen".

If the land around yours has risen in value, so has yours: "Location, location!" And what did you do to earn that windfall? NOTHING. If the unemployed shouldn't get the dole without giving something back, why should you get a massive unearned capital gain without giving something back?

Then he wants to know why land tax hasn't been abolished and replaced by GST.

Well, for one thing, land tax encourages selling when values rise and helps to limit the rise; and the reverse when values fall. Thus it stabilizes the growth of land values around the long-term trend, and prevents bubbles -- if the tax is high enough. But it isn't. So speculators pump up bubbles, which burst, causing recessions like the present one. But property owners, instead of admitting that more land tax would have prevented the recession, use the recession as an excuse to cut land tax and thereby clear the way for the next bubble, burst and recession!

Arjay blames land tax for the shortage of housing.

In fact land tax makes it necessary to earn income from land in order to cover the tax. If the land is residential, that means building accommodation and offering it to tenants or buyers, thus INCREASING the supply of housing and making it more affordable.

Yes, too much of the price of a home is tax. But land tax is not one of the taxes that feed into prices. The real offenders include stamp duty, payroll tax, GST, and income tax on rent, all of which punish people for providing housing.

Why not tax banking? It depends. A tax on interest, for example, means higher interest for borrowers (but not for savers, because they pay the tax). But if the supply of money were absolutely fixed, a holding tax on money would be like a land tax: it would encourage people to put money to use in order to cover the tax.

[Continued ...]

[... Continued]

Why not tax insurance? We do; but we shouldn't, because that punishes providers of housing, which needs to be insured.

Why not tax shares? Funny you should say that: Google on "Tax relief for listed companies".

Then Arjay says the mess we're in is due to land tax, when, as I have explained above, it's due to lack of land tax!

Dear rehctub: Property investors don't provide for their own retirement. They recruit renters and first home buyers to provide for their retirement!

In a rational market, the value of land is the present value of the future rent stream NET OF RATES AND LAND TAX. So rates and land tax must take LESS than the land rent. So if the rent you actually get for the land plus the house doesn't cover the rates and land tax, then verily you have failed to develop the land to the extent warranted by its location and zoning. Land tax encourages you to do so -- or sell the land to someone who will.

"one under god" is mostly indecipherable, except for "there is nothing in any constitution that allows for land tax".

Under the Australian Constitution, the States have any power that is not reserved for or overridden by the Commonwealth -- including the power to impose land tax. And the Federal Parliament, under s.51(ii) of the Constitution, can impose any tax not proscribed in s.51(ii) or elsewhere in the Constitution.

But the silliest thing about this anti-land-tax jihad is that if a government's revenue is proportional to land values, the government has an incentive to provide infrastructure that increases land values for the benefit of the owners. But if the owners manage to prevent their tax bills from tracking their land values, they effectively say to the government -- i.e. to their fellow taxpayers -- "Don't build infrastructure, because we won't let you recover your investment!"

More at http://lvrg.org.au/ , http://lvrg.org.au/blog/2009/03/pure-poison-on-land-tax.html and http://lvrg.org.au/blog/2009/03/pure-poison-on-land-tax-part-ii.html .

Land Tax is a really fascinating subject as is the subject of land generally.

S 36 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, in New South Wales says: 18 Edw 1 St 1 ( Quaia Emptores (because the buyers) c 1 and 3. 1290
Land held of the Crown in fee simple may be assured in fee simple without licence and without fine and the person taking under the assurance shall hold the land of the Crown in the same manner as the land was held before the assurance took effect.
S 37 says: All tenures created by the Crown by way of the alienation of an estate in fee simple in land after the commencement of this act shall be taken to be in free and common socage without any incident of tenure for the benefit of the Crown.

Now this raises all sorts of questions that require answers.

Firstly the meanings of the words used:
Assurance means conveyance, and S 36 must call into question the fees charged to transfer land in New South Wales and if it is right, then the land is the same as it was when first granted, no matter how many owners it has had.
Tenure: tenure is the word used to describe all land. Tenure means you never really own land, just a bundle of rights granted by the Crown in perpetuity. Freehold land is the greatest bundle you can own. Freehold was valued at about 40 years rent.
Socage: This is another fascinating word; it has Anglo Saxon roots where a soc was a plough. It means that the owner had a free and common right to plough the land, and reap the crop, and has been held in modern language to mean jurisdiction. It meant that the owner had a free right to do as he would with his land, without interference by the State.

One under God means that Almighty God actually owns the land, and the Crown is his agent. That was why since 1297, the right to have a jury find the true ownership rights was introduced

Mikk
Attituded like yours are one reason why so many kids will have no inheritance left to speak of.

You see as it stands, one should not try to better themselves by investing in property, they should invest in a bigger boat, or perhaps a caravan, or even both.

Travel the world, see the sights, live life like there is no tomorrow.

You see the system rewards those who do this, spend every cent and retire poor. At least then you get the pension.

Maybe this is 'big brothers' way of stimulating the ecconomy.

All good until we can no longer aford to support all the retirees.

So then they look at ways to collect even more taxes.

Where do you think it's going to stop!