The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Some of the older National Fronters would have known Mosley personally, some even being involved in the British Union of Fascists back in the 1930s. Had a suspicion they would pique your interests .Well, it seems that Norsef... National Front is everything that I had hoped for and then some. This probably means a terrible electoral defeat as everything I love always seems to find a flaming death in a few years.
Only horrific mistake I noticed.This is the central plank of the National Front’s agenda. 1,000,000 immigrants, 1,000,000 unemployed – the Front calls for British jobs for British workers. Each year the Tories allow 150,000 more immigrants into this country, each year they place another 150,000 British workers on the dole cue, another 150,000 foreign thieves and criminals on the streets. Coloured immigration leads directly to crime, unemployment, housing shortages, violence, lower wages and the dilution of the integrity of the white British nation. No longer!
Are you going to delay that horrible flaming death, or are you going to sell your vote for a drag queen?Well, it seems that Norsef... National Front is everything that I had hoped for and then some. This probably means a terrible electoral defeat as everything I love always seems to find a flaming death in a few years.
It's the nat-libs all over again.CPGB.
>"The National Front is a party of democracy and freedom of speech."
>"The National Front calls for the illegalisation of the Communist Party"
Woldn't do for a Brit, not to know the spelling of queue.Fixed.
Thanks for pointing it out.
First of all, not all land is productive. Nor can all land be expected to stay productive. Take for example an isle of the cost of Scotland, maybe a few hectares of rock and some plants. Zero production, zero profit; yet you would still want to tax it?The non-distortionary economics behind Land Value Tax are well known and well established by far superior economic minds to ours. I suggest you look it up if you're not familiar with it.
To quote Adam Smith:
"Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent."
And, if you continue to disagree with perfectly valid economic theory, then just look at the existing practical implementation of LVT without the effects you mentioned in parts of the United States and in Denmark.