Thursday 29 December 2011

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (187)

There appears to be some confusion over the inter-action between Land Value Tax and planning permission, which I suppose boils down to a complete misunderstanding as to how the rental value of bare land arises in the first place, and people confusing rental values with capital values/selling prices.

To cut a long story, it is people who create land rental values. Where there are more people, there is more economic activity and vice versa, and it makes sense to have better transport links, schools, hospitals, public parks where there are most people. All these make an area more suitable for economic activity and thus more desirable to live, thus pushing up land values further and attracting yet more people/businesses, thus making it more likely that transport links in that area are improved further and so on in a self-reinforcing pattern. These are 'centrifugal forces' which is why, if you drew a contour map of land values, there are huge towering peaks in land values in city centres, which manifest themselves as sky scrapers and tower blocks.

There are of course also 'centripetal forces' because there are plenty of other people who like [the illusion of] living in the countryside, and having a view over, or at least being near, fields, beaches, woodland etc. So the whole thing reaches some kind of equilibrium. The population of Greater London increased from 1 to 6 million during the 19th century, i.e. relatively speaking, the population of Greater London was growing faster than the total UK population - but even though the total UK population has nearly doubled since 1901, the population of Greater London had already reached its peak by then and has hovered between 6 and 8 million ever since.

1. What the NIMBYs always say is that "If we had LVT, then farmers would be forced to sell their fields to developers and England would be concreted over"

This is clearly nonsense.
a) nobody said that if we had LVT that all planning restrictions would be abolished anyway.
b) the annual rental value of farm land is very low, maybe one penny per square yard as against £10 per square yard for lower value residential land. Even if we bothered to collect LVT from farmland, it would be less than farmers currently pay in income tax, NIC etc, so farmers would be able to make more money from farming than they do now and there would be less incentive to sell their land for development as there'd be no massive windfall planning gains.
c) the centrifugal forces mean that nearly all new development would be at the edges of existing towns and cities, even if these increased in size by a tenth (enough for five million extra homes) this would only use up one per cent of existing farmland.
d) LVT sets a cut off point and actually restricts development at the very margin, so marginal land would remain untouched.

2. The Faux Lib's go one better and say that if we had LVT, people would be forced to put their land to inefficient uses to try and raise enough money to pay the tax, which would lead to malinvestment etc. This is of course utter nonsense as well, in a rational world, people are already putting their land to its most profitable use anyway, and the LVT would always be based on any plot of land being put to its most profitable permitted use, so if we decide that a farmer is not allowed to develop some fields or woodland because they provide people with a nice view, then his LVT bill would only be £5 an acre for the woodlands and £50 an acre for the farmland (or similar low figures). As long as the increase in rental values of the houses with the nice views is greater than the reduction in the rental value of the woodland or farmland, this makes good sense.

3. If we assume we have LVT and that 'local people' will still be allowed to prevent any new development in their area as at present, then there is a pleasing symmetry to this. Those people who try to push up the selling price of their own house, i.e. the scarcity value of the planning permission, will end up paying a larger share of the total LVT bill. So at least they are compensating those people who are forced to live somewhere they don't really want to live or in a home that is smaller than the one they would be able to afford if there were more homes.

4. If we assume that we have LVT and we allow things to be built where people need or want them, then this is even better. We know that LVT discourages 'urban sprawl' so we don't need to worry about England being concreted over, and we also know that planning restrictions reduce the total potential rental value of land in the UK, therefore, in the absence of planning restrictions, the total rental value of land would go up, however slightly, thus giving us a higher tax base (and hence a lower tax rate to generate the same amount in revenue).

5. Regular commenter Sobers is pretty much world champion at confusing all these issues, see his various comments here, as he keeps bringing capital values/selling prices into it.

His view appears to be that housing is so expensive for young people because of restrictive planning permission, therefore if we abandoned planning restrictions, more houses would be built and they would be cheaper, and therefore that there is absolutely no need for LVT. At the margin, yes, house prices might fall, but the total rental value of all UK land would go up, by definition. It is just that all this extra rental value would fall into the laps of farmers who happen to own a bit of land at the edges of towns and cities (and Sobers just so happens to own a fair bit of farmland at the edge of a large UK town...) and the rental value of those houses who currently benefit from the 'unspoiled' view over his farmland would fall a bit.

In summary, LVT works perfectly well with or without planning restrictions, both conceptually and administratively. LVT would push down capital values anyway (by definition) and it would also be much easier for young people to 'get on the property ladder' because the Citizen's Income they receive will more or less cover the LVT due on an average house (especially if you include Child Benefit), they won't have to pay income tax etc any more and the mortgage they have to take out will be much smaller.

16 comments:

Sobers said...

Look 'local people' don't prevent development. If they did there would never be any more development, ever. There are always NIMBYS who would complain about anything new, however sensible, required or pleasant to look at it might be. The planning system itself prevents development. Its centrally controlled by Whitehall, not local authorities. Whitehall makes the rules, and LAs have to abide by them. LAs know if they don't allow developments that meet the central govt guidelines the developers will appeal to Secretary of State and get permission that way, and the LA will be liable for costs if they have wilfully refused planning. So 'local' people' have zero to do with most of planning. Very occasionally a particular plan will get such local opposition as to be shelved and replaced by a similar one elsewhere, or just put off for a few years until everyone has got used to the idea, but thats it. There is no democracy in planning matters.

"there would be less incentive [for farmers] to sell their land for development as there'd be no massive windfall planning gains."

Nonsense. In the absence of development rules, two things would happen. Undeveloped land prices in suitable areas for development would rise from their current agricultural land value, and land with planning permission would drop massive in value. Currently agricultural land (with no 'hope value') is worth 6-7K/acre, and land with just permission (no infrastructure) is worth 100 -200K/acre. Land with permission and infrastructure in place is worth 5-600K/acre. That would equalise massively, in favour of the lower figure. My guess is that 1/4 acre plots with access to water, sewage and electricity would be worth 25-50K each. Allowing for costs of building of anywhere between 50K and 200K depending on building size and type, suddenly you have a massive ceiling on the current market. Why buy a house in a twee village for £400k when you can buy a plot and build your own for £200K? There would be a constant downward pressure on house prices as the supply of land is virtually infinite (as you often point out we only use 5% of all land currently). The basic constraint would be building costs.

So farmers would have a good incentive to sell land off for building because they would be getting many times what they paid for the land. And in the absence of CGT it would all be tax free. And there never could be a cartel, as land ownership is too widely spread - someone will always want a bit of extra money too much and sell at a lower price, if people tried to game the market.

My solution in fact does not favour me - I stand to do very well out of the existing planning system. In fact I'd lose out under a free for all. But it would be a better system. Under LVT you have already agreed that cheaper houses would rise in value. Under my system houses across the board would drop in value as the only constraint would be building costs. If you wanted to you could buy a plot of land and live in a caravan or mobile home if you liked, which would be virtually free. So existing houses would have to compete in price with that low floor.

Whats not to like?

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, you are veering off the specific topic as usual, as well as contradicting yourself:

The planning system itself prevents development. Its centrally controlled by Whitehall, not local authorities. Whitehall makes the rules, and LAs have to abide by them. LAs know if they don't allow developments that meet the central govt guidelines the developers will appeal to Secretary of State and get permission that way,"

Woah! So as far as you can see, 'local people' have no input, local councils have little influence, and Whitehall has the whip hand and makes councils allow developments which they otherwise would have turned down?? So if the only body with any power, Whitehall, is making council allow developments, how does this sit with your first claim that "the planning system prevents development"?

I said: "[Under LVT], there would be less incentive [for farmers] to sell their land for development as there'd be no massive windfall planning gains."

You said: "Nonsense." No it's not nonsense, that's the way it would work.

You then went on to say: "In the absence of development rules, two things would happen. Undeveloped land prices in suitable areas for development would rise from their current agricultural land value, and land with planning permission would drop massive in value."

It's not clear to me whether you are talking about a system with or without LVT, it's not clear to me why you keep harping on about selling prices when LVT is concerned mainly with rental values.

Either way, your claims are unfounded. We know that, because there are plenty of countries with much more liberal planning laws than in the UK and there are still huge differences between rental values in the middle of towns, in places with a nice view, in places with good schools etc, and the rental values in the middle of nowhere.

And in these countries, most people still prefer to live in or near existing towns and cities, houses are not dotted evenly across the whole of the USA, people live in towns and cities, urbanisation is a global trend as agricultural becomes more labour-efficient and as the economy becomes more industrial or service based. And by definition, there is not an unlimited supply of land in or near existing towns and cities.

You said: "Under LVT you have already agreed that cheaper houses would rise in value."

Nope, I never said that, you said that and I couldn't be bothered arguing. Fact is, under full-on LVT only the very cheapest houses (those costing £60k or less) might rise a tiny bit, all other houses could come down in value, and selling prices would level out at rebuild costs only (again, by definition).

You said: "If you wanted to you could buy a plot of land and live in a caravan or mobile home if you liked, which would be virtually free."

Maybe so, but under LVT you can rent a tiny plot of land for £200 a year instead of having a massive income tax bill and mortgage repayments of £100. The LVT would be a tiny fraction of your Citizens Income, so I really don't see the relevance of this claim.

So while having a planning free for all (without LVT) might make things slightly better than they are now (let's just agree on that), do you not realise that the total rental value of UK land would go UP?

It's just that some farmers would be quids in and others would lose out a little bit - but the really high value areas (middle of towns and cities, Sandbanks in Poole etc) would be entirely unaffected, and there would still be a huge transfer of wealth from the productive economy to landowners and banks.

So with or without planning restrictions, there is still every justification for taxing the rental value of land rather than taxing individual efforts via income tax, VAT and so on.

Sobers said...

I have no idea why you keep banging on about the total rental value of UK property. Its irrelevant to me. And rents would go down under my planning free for all, not rise. If there's more houses around then by definition rents must fall. Why do you keep saying they would rises if planning were liberalised?

Housing is not some mystical market unlike any other. Its very simple. Increase supply of anything, prices fall. If you suddenly open up an massive new source of housing at cheap prices (1/4 acre plot @ £40k say, build costs for 4 bed detached £100k) then all the existing housing stock has to adjust in price to take that into account. You don't need to actually build that many new houses. Just the option being there reduces the price of the existing ones straight away. Imagine someone suddenly discovered a new source of oil, enough to power the world for centuries, at cheap prices. What would happen to the current oil price? It would fall through the floor despite not a single drop of new oil even having been produced. Same with houses.

The main issue you have with property prices is that a) young people are priced out of the market (correct) and b) people who bought houses years ago have massive undeserved windfalls (true-ish). Liberalised planning solves both those problems, with no new taxes and no massive upheaval of people's lives. You don't even have to do it in one fell swoop. Just keep incrementally liberalising the planning rules bit by bit, so there isn't a massive market crash on day one. You eventually reach an equilibrium where houses are mostly priced on the cost of the bricks and mortar and a small amount for the land. There will be no house price inflation because who is going to bid up the price of an existing house when he can buy a plot a few miles down the road and build his own for a fraction of the cost?

Mark Wadsworth said...

S: "I have no idea why you keep banging on about the total rental value of UK property."

Because rental values are what society generates and what LVT is a tax on. Rental values are very stable, and capital values are just a varying multiple of rental values (depends on boom-bust cycle, subsidies/taxes and interest rates).

"And rents would go down under my planning free for all, not rise. If there's more houses around then by definition rents must fall. Why do you keep saying they would rise if planning were liberalised?"

I'm not talking about the rental value of one specific house or one specific plot of land, the rental values of some existing houses or plots might well go down, I do not dispute that but it is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about the total rental value of all land taken together.

I know what you are talking about but do you understand the difference between 'rental values' and 'selling prices'?

"Housing is not some mystical market unlike any other. Its very simple. Increase supply of anything, prices fall."

Yes, under a planning free for all, the selling price of existing houses might fall to some extent (hooray) but firstly, selling prices are a function of rents, so let's focus on those, and secondly, the total rental value of all houses would be much the same before and after.

Why would it be lower?

Think about it: imagine two countries with the same population, same surface area and the same GDP. Country A has very restrictive planning laws and every household lives in a two-bed flat. Country B has restrictive planning laws are liberal and most households live in a four bed detached house (and there is no freedom of movement between the two countries).

What makes you think that the total rental value of land in Country A is higher than in Country B, that is a preposterous assumption. The total rental value might be much the same, or it might be a bit higher in B.

"You eventually reach an equilibrium where houses are mostly priced on the cost of the bricks and mortar and a small amount for the land. There will be no house price inflation because who is going to bid up the price of an existing house when he can buy a plot a few miles down the road and build his own for a fraction of the cost?"

This is truly nonsense and has no basis in logic or fact. Let's not bother with hypotheticals, there really are countries with very liberal planning laws, and we observe that there are still huge differences between the rental value of good areas and crap areas.

Even within the UK, there are huge differences between rental values in good areas and crap areas, that is why we get these contour lines, which you know perfectly well.

And within any town there are good areas and crap areas, and people are prepared to pay a lot more to live in the good ones. People will always be prepared to pay more to live in the good areas, so even if rents in the crap areas are £nil, then the OK areas and the good areas will still have a rental value.

Mark Wadsworth said...

"Liberalised planning solves both those problems, with no new taxes and no massive upheaval of people's lives."

Liberalised planning laws might well help a bit at the margins, but by and large it is not a panacea. And does nothing to reduce the amount of rent collected privately.

And who said anything about "new taxes"? I say get rid of these new taxes, like VAT or NIC or income tax, and go back to the oldest tax of all, LVT. Which wouldn't cause a 'massive upheaval' in people's lives, it would all sort itself out after a couple of years.

Replacing taxes with LVT might cause a 'massive upheaval' in the lives of five or ten per cent of the population, but that is just tough, frankly, better to have a short sharp shock for these Boomers than to flush the lives of half the population down the toilet for all eternity.

Anonymous said...

To Sober's credit, you haven't spelled out why rental values would go up on a whole, do you mean by LVT on it's own or because of the boosting effect of ditching other taxes?

Also:
d) LVT sets a cut off point and actually restricts development at the very margin, so marginal land would remain untouched.


How?

-Kj

Mark Wadsworth said...

Kj: "You haven't spelled out why rental values would go up on a whole"

Forget about LVT for the time being, and go back to my example (let's assume both countries have the same tax system which just taxes earned income):

"Imagine two countries with the same population, same surface area and the same GDP.

Country A has very restrictive planning laws and every household lives in a two-bed flat. Country B has liberal planning laws and most households live in a four bed detached house (and there is no freedom of movement between the two countries).

What makes you think that the total rental value of land in Country A is higher than in Country B, that is a preposterous assumption. The total rental value might be much the same, or it might be a bit higher in B."
*

"LVT sets a cut off point and actually restricts development at the very margin, so marginal land would remain untouched."

For a start, there would be much more intensive use of existing urban land, all the derelict sites would be brought into use, second homes would be sold to actual full time occupants, and there would be more incentive to build the biggest buildings you can.

Now, remember that land values follow contours around 'the centre', whatever that may be and let's imagine there's the same rate LVT for each square yard in any postcode sector, including surrounding as yet undeveloped land, call it £20 a year for sake of argument.

So people will be happy to build and maintain houses in the best bits near 'the centre' because the rental value of a whole (existing) house is (say) £15,000 or more, the cost of building and maintaining the bricks and mortar is (say) £5,000 and so the balance is enough to pay the LVT.

But at the margin, further away from 'the centre' (be that the literal town centre, the railway station, the beach, the best school, whatever) the total rental value of a house would be only £11,000. The potential builder knows that the net rent after costs of building and maintaining a house would still be £5,000 so the house is not worth building.

* If we then chuck LVT into the mix, of course gross rental values would go up, because people's disposable incomes before rents would approx. double (no more income tax or NIC, most goods and services are cheaper because no VAT, and they get the Citizen's Income on top).

As well as the fact that the economy would be a lot bigger without taxes on income. Taxes on income have dead weight costs, taxes on land values have worst case no dead weight costs and at best actually stimulate the economy. But that's a separate issue.

Anonymous said...

>(especially if you include Child Benefit

Which you shouldn't. Of course children WOULD get a C.D. but all of that would be spend of schooling.

AC1

Sobers said...

"capital values are just a varying multiple of rental values (depends on boom-bust cycle, subsidies/taxes and interest rates)."

So in fact there is no real relation between the two - a large number of complex factors are at play and one can make no predictions of capital values for any given rental value.

And it matters not if the total rental value after planning liberalisation is higher, lower or exactly the same. The point is that individual rents (and house prices would be lower). So individuals would be better off. Some in cash terms, if they currently rent, some in lifestyle terms, if they currently can't afford to rent and have to live with parents, rent a room etc, but could afford a house of their own under planning liberalisation.

The only losers I can see under my system would be people who took on large mortgages in the last few years and would end up in negative equity as house prices fell. Everyone else would either be winner, or be no worse off. Young people starting out would be better off, Old people who have bought their house would be no worse off as while their house would be worth less, so would all the other houses so they could trade down just as before.People renting would gain from lower rental values. My concession to the negative equity crowd would be a law allowing anyone in negative equity (who had bought their house before a certain date) to convert their mortgage to a tenancy (at market rent) with the bank as landlord. Nobody loses out (except the banks who lent too much in the last few years, and frankly, no-one gives a stuff about them).

Anonymous said...

Sobers: So in fact there is no real relation between the two - a large number of complex factors are at play and one can make no predictions of capital values for any given rental value.

As a matter of fact, you can. A zero rental value means a zero selling price and a non-zero rental value means a non-zero selling price. It is a complex relation, but it is most certainly real!

And rents would go down under my planning free for all, not rise. If there's more houses around then by definition rents must fall.

There are two forces here. Construction increases supply, which would suggest falling rents. However, development typically leads to locations near that development to become more desirable, which acts to increase rents. In particular, construction at the edge of a town would probably result in decreased prices at that section of the edge, and increased prices as you head towards the centre.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Sobers, as ever you are introducing all sorts of wild claims into the discussion.

"So in fact there is no real relation between [rental and capital values] - a large number of complex factors are at play and one can make no predictions of capital values for any given rental value."

As Fraggles points out, this is nonsense. The selling price of a house with a rental value of £20k will be +/- twice as much as the selling price of one with a rental value of £10k, which in turn is +/- twice as much as the selling price of one with a rental value of £5k and so on.

"And it matters not if the total rental value after planning liberalisation is higher, lower or exactly the same."

Good, you seem to have sort of answered my question, let's agree that the total rental value of UK land would be the same, i.e.

At present, 25 million houses with average rental value of £10k each = £250 billion.

If we allowed another 2 million to be built, the average rental value might fall to £9,500 each = £257 billion, but the extra £7 billion relates to the extra cost of building/maintaining the 2 million new homes, so net rental value of land is the same.

However, that is only the average rental value, which happens quite simply because the rental value of the new ones is lower (those being in the less favourable sites - the best ones already having been taken), and some houses lose their view over The Hallowed Green Belt.

Ergo, the overall transfer of wealth from productive economy to rent seeking sector (whether as income tax or as ground rent) is exactly the same.

You then give an approximate list of winners and losers. The list for winners and losers under LVT would be fairly similar, but there would be far more winners and far fewer losers...

"people who took on large mortgages in the last few years and would end up in negative equity as house prices fell"

These recent purchasers probably have lower house price to income ratios than Boomers, and so under LVT would win out most from income tax etc being scrapped.

And on my list of additional winners are the millions of people who would find a job or a better job in the growing economy, the infinite number of people in future who will find it a doddle "getting on the property ladder", all those derelict and vacant sites and buildings brought into use, all those new businesses which start up or don't fail, all those billions currently collected by banks or landlords which ends up being ploughed straight back into the productive economy etc.

The only real losers under full-on LVT, in the short term, would be those with very high house price to income ratios, that's a couple of million households (let's exempt pensioners from LVT to keep the maths simple). It's up to them whether they go out and work a bit more, take in a lodger, ask their heirs to pay the tax or trade down.

Don't forget that trading down can be in absolute terms or in relative terms - if more new housing is built, then for given total LVT revenues, the LVT bill for existing houses will fall.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Frag, ta for back up, as ever. These Homeys refuse to accept that land is always a local monopoly and its not a question of increasing supply.

Let me try an analogy:

Imagine that there are a fixed number of tax drivers' permits in a town, and the terms of taxi drivers' permits is that they may only use their car for six hours a day (for spurious health and safety reasons). So by and large, we notice that most drivers are out and about at the best times of the day - during morning and evening rush hours and at pub closing time. They take time off at midday and in the evening.

But taxi drivers are quite happy to work longer hours, or to work in tandem with a second or third driver, so that cars could be on the road nearly 24/7.

The town now abolishes the six hour rule, without increasing the number of permits, and

We observe a few things:

1. There are taxis out and about from the crack of dawn until the last pub has shut.

2. The total income per taxi goes up, and the increases is more at least as much as the wages demanded by second and third drivers.

3. Fares charged/income earned per minute during the rush hour barely drop, because the number of cars on the road barely increases at these times (they were already working to full capacity at these times).

4. Fares charged/income earned per minute at the margins of the old peak times falls a tiny bit, because those people who made a point of being at the taxi rank before 10 o'clock even though they didn't really need a taxi until 10.30 now turn up at 10.30 instead.

To now apply this simple analogy to land, if we liberalised planning laws, then it stands to reason that total rental values in the best areas would be entirely unchanged, rents on marginal houses would fall a bit and the rental value of hitherto undeveloped land would go up a lot, and certainly more in total than the total fall in rental value of marginal houses.

Robin Smith said...

Yes population growth kicks off rent. Followed by technology advances which increases rent even more intensely than population growth. This is why the luddites were correct. Technical fixes to poverty only increase the gain to landowners under the law of the landlord. The distribution of earnings gets even worse, the more society advances. And then. . . BOOM! It disappears. And the land is redeemed again.

I think you'll find that all the vacant city lots will be filled first with much more desirable property before more urban sprawl on the edge. And rural hamlets will become more densely populated too. Things would be less angry in the city and less lonely in the country. Nice. But we dont want that do we. Just like the yanks dont want free health care.

You didnt mention the green fascists such as Professor of "Economics" Paul Ekins who says that LVT would cause cities to be more over developed and less efficient. Or is that covered in point 2?

There you go in point 3. You are declaring there is a scarcity of homes. I withdraw my apology from a couple of days ago. X

No offence but 4, lvt reduces urban sprawl, has a self contradiction to 1c, lvt increases urban sprawl. ?

Surely if planning restrictions harmonise with the will of the people land values will increase compared to when they do not or when there are none at all. Both relatively and absolutely. It is what the people want! Land has no value if people do not want it? So isnt the question: what are the planning permissions with the greatest power to increase rents with and without LVT?

I think Sobers is doing a great job. We need more leaders like him. The revolution will come far more quickly if so. Followed by the Great Jubilee where his land is redeemed to the hard working, skilful and industrious entrepreneurs from whom he stole it.

Robin Smith said...

Oops, Sobers is nearly correct to say that Councils have no power over planning. But neither do central government.

How long will it take for all you slaves at various levels in the slave hierarchy to own up to the fact that your masters are not elected at all.

And that your "leaders" are just the most senior slaves. The equestrian order. They do not represent us.

The banks tell our leaders what to do. The rules they just have change if matters start moving against them.

You can read about it daily. Wake up you slaves and demand your freedom. Or shut the *uck up.

In the end its our fault. Because we have chosen slavery.

Mark Wadsworth said...

RS: "You didnt mention the green fascists such as Professor of "Economics" Paul Ekins who says that LVT would cause cities to be more over developed and less efficient. Or is that covered in point 2?"

If you want me to feature Paul Ekins in a future instalment of the KLN series, please send me a link. But by and large, that is covered in point 2.

"There you go in point 3. You are declaring there is a scarcity of homes. I withdraw my apology from a couple of days ago."

I never said that there was an absolute shortage of homes or that there wasn't enough urban land. I've always said that homes are distributed very unevenly or inefficiently. So if on average there are three bedrooms per household, it's not much consolation to two young families with two bedrooms each in a house converted into two flats that the boomer couple next door have three bedrooms in their main home and another two in their holiday cottage (total nine bedrooms divided by three households).

Further, as a matter of fact, British houses are pretty small and crappy by international standards.

"No offence, but 4, lvt reduces urban sprawl, has a self contradiction to 1c, lvt increases urban sprawl. ?"

Nope. Filling in vacant and underused lots in urban areas and building new housing at the next best sites at the edges of existing towns is not urban sprawl. Building vast new estates in the middle of nowhere which requires disproportionate investment in utility connections, extra roads IS 'urban sprawl', this is from the Great Book of Fred Foldvary.

"Followed by the Great Jubilee where his land is redeemed to the hard working, skilful and industrious entrepreneurs from whom he stole it."

I don't think Sobers did steal land, all land has to belong to somebody, what he is trying to do is to tap into public wealth and collect it privately in future.

And I have not "chosen slavery" (you and I have done very well out of Home-Owner-Ism, by accident or design). Nobody deliberately chooses slavery for themselves, but it appears most voters are happy to impose it on 'other people' (not realising that they themselves are 'other people'). So the difference is that I want everybody to be un-enslaved, not just me.

Robin Smith said...

Thanks for the clarifications. Agreed on the unenslaving. You and I both being free now. But I disagree that we have all done well out of it. We would have done far better with LVT. Everyone will be better off with an LVT. Not recognising this is an indicator of slavery. Its hard to forget a childhood of pure brainwashing.