[Joe] But there are two things I cannot alter, no
matter whether I'm producing lumber or not. One is
property taxes levied by some division of the Crown,
which accrue over a period of time.
----------
[Bill] Without commenting on the Crown, in Texas you could
merely not pay. It is not a criminal offense. You
can challenge the assessment. You can appeal it.
Typically, other bills, such as to the telephone and
electric companies take precedence over taxes.
--
It isn't a 'criminal offense' to not pay here either, Bill. Though there is a hefty financial penalty attached for non-payment by the due date, and more at various periods of continued non-payment. At a certain point the property would be put up for tax sale by the Crown, and sold. After which the delinquent taxpayer has a year to redeem all the taxes, penalties, and other charges, or title is transfered to the party who's 'picked it up for taxes'. The interest penalties on an unpaid electric or phone bill would pale in comparison to that levied on an unpaid property tax bill if the property has considerable value. The system in BC does not allow for the appeal of the tax amount itself, only for the assessment. Which must be done well prior to the time the tax is actually levied. We never know what the tax will be when the assessment notices come out, since the mil rate is set months later. After the time for assessment appeal has well passed. It's not unusual to see a lower assessment, but a higher tax.
[Joe} It is based on 'time', and 'time' alone. Now the
banks, if they are so inclined, may allow me to
forego those payments. It is entirely at their
discretion ~ their 'policy'. Unlike an unpaid bill,
which may also attract interest, theirs is secured by
a mortgage, or possibly a debenture. If there's a
general depression in lumber sales, there may be no
point in their foreclosing, if what may be recovered
from the sale of my assets isn't immediately
attractive. But regardless of what they do the
possibility of loss of their 'intangible' is far and
away less than the actuality of loss of my
'tangibles'. Continued to the extremes that faced
the Alberta farmers in the first seven years of the
Great Depression, one could find oneself having the
original debt double through compound interest, the
farm foreclosed and sold at the first sign of the
bank's chance to do so, and then being presented with
a garnishee on future income for the balance!
----------
[Bill] And Douglas listed several corrective measures in his
Interim Report. Not one of them was the abolishment
of interest.
The Depression was the direct result of credit
contraction making it impossible for business to
continue. It became impossible to fulfill previous
commitments of all types. It became impossible to
continue.
--
Yes, I'm aware of that. The "Interim Report" was likely a clever piece of political manipulating by the UFA government to deflate the rise of 'social credit'. Duff Pattulo, the Liberal Party Premier of BC in that same era, made a great pretense of being interested in Social Credit too. And even invited Douglas to address the BC Legislature, which he did. The real purpose was solely to defuse any attempt to organize popular support for Social Credit, by making the public think his government was contemplating it. Prime Minister MacKenzie King did virtually the same thing in the Dominion election campaign in 1935. When he got to the Prairies his speeches sounded very much like what Aberhart had been saying. Only they were all 'hot air'.
[Joe] It is a 'grip of death', not a simple profit on the
provision of a necessary service.
----------
[Bill] Interest was not the cause of the Great Depression.
--
It is interesting to note, from "The Big Idea", page 33, the description of the ''Reduction and Settlement of Debt Act" passed by the Alberta Legislature, after, I believe, the backbench MLAs revolted against the direction Aberhart had been going, and Byrne and Powell had been sent out by Douglas to advise on the steps to be taken to implement Social Credit.
The Reduction and Settlement of Debt Act
Why Passed
1. Because under the current financial system debt cannot be repaid without creating new and larger debts. The People of Alberta possess only about 20cents for every $ 1.00 of debt ~ this they owe to the banks, and can get no money except as debt to the bankers.
2. Because private debts, largely due to accumulated interest, had increased to such an extent that they were out of proportion to value received.
3. Because many outstanding debts had been incurred during the war and immediate post-war years when values were high.
4. Because the original debt had already, in many cases, been paid in interest charges while the principal remained unchanged or showed little reduction.
5. Because people could no longer continue to pay interest of 8 to 10 percent.
6. Because financial corporations refused to recognise that the inability of people to meet their obligations was due to lack of adequate returns on what they produced.
7. Because no people or country can prosper and progress as long as they labour under a burden of those who deal in money as a commodity
Though they don't specifically touch on what we're currently discussing, it is also worth noting the two opening paragraphs of the chapter in which that Act's description appears. Since "The Big Idea" is not, to my knowledge, a book of Douglas's that is very readily available, I'll quote what Douglas wrote here:-
"If the Social Credit Government of Alberta had done nothing~and it has done many things~to justify its existence, the demonstration afforded by its enemies of one fundamental factor of the world situation would still have made it a landmark in human history."
"That factor, completely demonstrated by the actions of the Canadian Federal Government, in Disallowing every Act of the Provincial Legislature directed to the inauguration of Social Credit, is that the Secret Government is determined to keep the world in turmoil until its own rule is supreme....."
I think it is absolutely vital we NEVER forget that, no matter who may, or may not, be right on the technical details.
[Joe] Of course we can say that under 'social credit', with
the correct application of credit as DouglasBut if those 'creditary mechanisms' are based on 'tangible money' that could still be shifted out of one credit area to another we still have a problem.
envisioned, the problems of 'bust', such as I've just
described would be mitigated. But at the present
time, 'interest' in the sense of 'usury' is still a
part of the problem.
----------
[Bill] Not per se. It is just another name for profit.
--
Well, we're all entitled to our own interpretations. My mind is always open to be convinced I'm wrong.
[Joe] There is no denying 'labour displacement' is the crux
of the issue for 'social crediters' today. But even
in times antecedent to the Industrial Revolution, the
development of 'fractional reserve' banking, or even
any formal banking as we know it today, the question
of interest was always a source of trouble.
----------
[Bill] Then it indeed was, before the development of
creditary mechanisms. Tangible money was a scarce
commodity that could be hoarded to the detriment of
one's neighbors.
[Joe] We need to be very certain when we deal with this
issue that we do not inadvertently introduce
something into Social Credit that leads back to the
'centralisation' we are trying to get away from.
----------
[Bill] What would that be?
Sketch for me, please, how you believe the 'new credits' will be administered in relation to your understanding of Douglas.
Joe
==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===============================================================
