If you can't convince the people of LVT, you have to monetise rent for your own safety.

The point of this piece is to state clearly that while wealth creation is all that is taxed, and unearned incomes remain untaxed, the only way to stay safe is to monetise the rents for your household. 

That is: If a household does not monetise RENT as a priority for running their household securely, that would be a feckless activity placing the household in danger of bankruptcy.

Note: I'm not saying LVT should or should not be adopted. Or that speculating in real estate is a good or a bad thing. This is not a matter of morality or saving the planet. It is a matter of protecting your household against the system punishing you. 

I am saying if LVT or something close to it, is not adopted, there will always be poverty and unemployment right next to enormous wealth. Not to mention guaranteed periodic great recession.

Here is why this is not the paradox it first appears to be:

LVT is the hardest of all economic policy, to convince people of. Because by agreeing to it means one can no longer continue to steal in secret, from one's 'neighbours'.

This also makes LVT the most failing economic policy in all of history. Given the people want to keep up their systemic theft which benefits them in secret, obviously any politician who makes a stand on it will be unelectable for the rest of their career.

What do I mean by this 'secret theft'? If everyone is at it, including the weak and the poor, who will be able to make stand against it without being mobbed and cancelled? Non one! Anyone who tries will be to all intents sent into exile, if they start succeeding in getting a hearing on it. 

I have made a direct single policy stand on it as part of a political manifesto in national elections, several times. Not because I'm either stupid or a hypocrite - I have loads of real estate, live off the proceeds of the rent, do no work for my income and am the classic 'rentier'. Again this is not a hypocrisy. First and foremost I do it because otherwise my household is in jeopardy thanks to systemic tax theft. Next, I'm answering what is causing poverty because that is the question people are asking me to answer for cryin' out loud. And as a politician that is what I'm obliged to do. You ask me. I tell you. I do not have to agree with any of it.

Of course programmed idiots will persist in the hypocrisy allegations, which was a a frequent activity, and their followers who are even bigger idiots will listen to them. That is the state of public discourse driving all the poverty in the end.

These expected political attacks were all in my politically active days as a think tank analyst and marketeer. In my recent days since 2015 I use. completely different style: I simply tell people to get property, free from debt if possible, if not with a mortgage if possible and not too highly leveraged. All their investments are a risk and not guaranteed like real estate. 

I changed my style because I no longer need to get elected. I'm telling people about everything I discovered in my active days which showed me what made me poor and what makes me rich, because losing votes is not longer a worry. I'm just saying what is observed and that is what every living person and household, MUST DO, while LVT, or something like it has NOT yet been adopted as economic policy of the nation. Because otherwise you will ruin your household, unless you're an exceptionally lucky person.

That is: If a household does not monetise RENT as a priority for running their household securely, that would be a feckless activity placing the household in danger of bankruptcy.

Yes, the household can still devote spare time to working for a living too, as an employee or director of a business creating wealth and forming capital. But this is only a good thing if you've already exhausted all the flows of economic rent available to you.  Don't waste effort on doing less productive things until the more productive channels have been exhausted.

This is all thanks entirely to taxation, almost all of which falls, in the end, on earned incomes - the creation of wealth and capital. And virtually no tax falls on rent, in the end. If you devote any time to wealth creation, it will be highly taxed (approaching 50%). Whereas rents are untaxed, in the end. 

The point of this piece is to state clearly that while wealth creation is all that is taxed, and unearned incomes remain untaxed, the only way for your household to stay safe is to monetise the rents. Even if you declare politically that LVT is the only sustainable economic policy, you are only pointing out what in theory will work and is root cause of poverty. And under these freely chosen conditions, sustaining the household by monetising rents is far more important than that!