# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

## shane77m

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us...x.html?_r=1&hp




> I would like to be able to know that my home, no matter what happens to my income or my life, is not going to be taken away from me because I cant pay a tax, said Susan Beehler, one in a group of North Dakotans who have pressed for an amendment to the states Constitution to end the property tax.


Maybe Alabama will follow along and do the same thing.

----------


## Simon

This needs to spread across the country like a wildfire.  There is something horribly wrong with a system that can steal an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street.

----------


## jkr

> This needs to spread across the country like a wildfire.  There is something horribly wrong with a system that can steal an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street.


yep! so much for their "social safety net"

----------


## Roy L

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us...x.html?_r=1&hp
> Maybe Alabama will follow along and do the same thing.


And join the California Death Spiral....

----------


## ctiger2

Good on ND. I'd move there if it wasn't such a $#@!ty place to live. Hopefully they pass it and more states have a look once it's proven a success.

----------


## Roy L

> This needs to spread across the country like a wildfire.


It would be about as destructive.



> There is something horribly wrong with a system that can steal an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street.


Stupid, evil, anti-property tax liars always have to tell stupid, evil lies.  *Always*.

When did property taxes ever _steal_ an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street??  _When?_  Anti-property tax liars have been challenged many times to name *and document* a single case where that has happened, and they have never been able to do so.  Ever.

CA passed Proposition 13 in 1978 allegedly to save a handful of those mythical elderly widows from a fate worse than death: selling at a huge, unearned and untaxed profit -- pocketing an outright GIFT from the community -- and buying in a neighborhood better suited to their needs and means.

But what has been the *ACTUAL RESULT??*  Because of CA's low-property-tax-fueled land boom and now bust, in the last five years, MILLIONS of Californians have _literally_ had their homes *taken* from them, have lost their life savings and everything else, while a handful of huge corporations have saved billions on their property taxes.

That kind of atrocity does not happen innocently.  It requires stupid, evil liars who are willing to chant stupid, evil lies.

----------


## Roy L

> Good on ND. I'd move there if it wasn't such a $#@!ty place to live. Hopefully they pass it and more states have a look once it's proven a success.


Yeah, look what a huge, proven success California has had with Proposition 13.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

----------


## TonySutton

> But what has been the *ACTUAL RESULT??*  Because of CA's low-property-tax-fueled land boom and now bust, in the last five years, MILLIONS of Californians have _literally_ had their homes *taken* from them, have lost their life savings and everything else, while a handful of huge corporations have saved billions on their property taxes.


wait what ??!?!?!

It took 30 years for the Prop 13 bubble to pump up enough to burst?  really??!?!!   reaching much? are you sure it was prop 13?

----------


## Kluge

> wait what ??!?!?!
> 
> It took 30 years for the Prop 13 bubble to pump up enough to burst?  really??!?!!   reaching much? are you sure it was prop 13?


Sounds like a troll is grasping at straws here. (Roy, not you.)

----------


## shane77m

I think Roy just likes taxes.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

wait is someone a fan of Ron Paul and an advocate of property taxes?

I'm very confused these days

----------


## Kluge

> I think Roy just likes taxes.


Many people do. Especially those who get paid with them.

----------


## Roy L

> It took 30 years for the Prop 13 bubble to pump up enough to burst?  really??!?!!


Yes.  It was kicked down the road by Silicon Valley and the dot.cons in the 90s, then by the credit bubble after 2001 and bank deregulation.



> reaching much?


No.



> are you sure it was prop 13?


Yes.  States with high property tax rates -  NH, NJ, TX, WI, OR, etc. -- did not experience the bubble on the scale that low property tax states like CA, NV, FL and AZ did.

----------


## Roy L

> Sounds like a troll is grasping at straws here. (Roy, not you.)


You have realized that the facts prove your beliefs are false and evil, so you have to refuse to know them.  Simple.

----------


## Roy L

> I think Roy just likes taxes.


You haven't read many of my posts, then.

----------


## Roy L

> wait is someone a fan of Ron Paul and an advocate of property taxes?


Compared to most other taxes on the books, anyway.  The statistical relationship is very clear: low property tax states are mostly basket cases, high property tax states are better in almost every way.  There are good economic reasons for that.  You just don't know enough economics to be aware of them.



> I'm very confused these days


That is not an accident.

----------


## Roy L

> Many people do. Especially those who get paid with them.


<sigh>  I don't get paid with taxes, and I want almost all of them abolished.  The one good tax we have is the land value portion of the property tax.  Abolishing it is insanity.

----------


## rockerrockstar

I think getting rid of property taxes could be good.  But I am not 100% sure what implications it would have as far as other taxes going up to make up for it.  Would non property owners pay the money that the property owners are now paying (after a shift increase of other taxes to make up for the loss of property taxes)?  My guess is yes that would be the case.  Anyways, there is always a give an take.  I do like the fact that once you buy something you should not have to pay taxes every year to keep it.  There should be a one time tax on it like purchasing anything else.  A sales tax and that is it.  Just a thought.  But the reality of the situation would need to be looked at.  What would be the benefits versus the costs to the tax payers.  Would it unfairly burden people that do not own property by shifting the taxes on to them?

I don't believe Roy L statement on why the housing bubble happened I don't think property taxes had much to do with it.  It was more about over priced houses do to easy credit and people willing to pay too much for houses.  It was about the greed of banks and the subprime loans.

Would there be a capitol gains tax on the sale of the property once it was sold?  Just thinking here.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Yes.  States with high property tax rates -  NH, NJ, TX, WI, OR, etc. -- did not experience the bubble on the scale that low property tax states like CA, NV, FL and AZ did.


The people of CA actually has near the highest property taxes in the US, especially in the coastal areas from the Bay to the Mexican border where millions and millions of people live.  Orange County and LA, despite having near the highest property taxes in the US, experienced a massive bubble.  As did the area just inland of OC and LA.  FL is also a high property tax state.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Proposition 13 did not abolish property taxes, it only placed a cap on them based on the value of the property at the time of sale. Prop 13 didn't go far enough, in my opinion.  The land speculation that lead to the bubble implosion in 08 was the result of monetary policy, and had nothing to do with property taxes, high or low.  In fact, property taxes tended to be highest in the areas where land values due to speculation increased the most.   

Because property taxes can increase without any regard whatsoever to one's circumstances or ability to pay, there are many (like those living on fixed incomes) who are forced to sell their property when they can no longer afford to pay the taxes _and live_ in their home. Thus, property tax becomes a mechanism for sweeping aside the "unproductive" (unproductive to the state), and has definite appeal to those who rely on government revenue streams, and want them maximized, not threatened in any way. 

Incidentally, the group opposing Measure 2 in North Dakota (all beneficiaries of property tax laws, including special exemptions) has outspent the proponents to the tune of hundreds of thousands versus thousands. Well over $1 Billion in mostly private property is exempt from paying any property taxes in just four counties in North Dakota. Those are economic advantages that were lobbied for through the ND Chamber of Commerce and other lobbyists, which special interests don't want to lose.  The Tax Commissioner of North Dakota, Cory Fong, a staunch opponent of the Measure, has already projected that property taxes will increase by 7%+ every year - meaning that if M2 does not pass (and it may not) the property taxes paid, the rate of increase of which more than outstrips inflation, will more than double over the next decade. 

This is actually deja vu for North Dakota, which has been through this before. They sought to abolish PERSONAL property taxes (on possessions, like jewelry and appliances) back in the early 60's. North Dakota University, teachers unions and others on the public doll did studies, and circulated propaganda saying that the sky would fall in North Dakota if that tax was not in place. Local governments would lose control, schools wouldn't be funded, essential government services would be cut to nothing, etc., and proposition for the repeal of the _personal property tax_ was soundly defeated in '65.  Emboldened by this defeat, local governments, with the help of the North Dakota Legislature, apparently felt that personal property taxes were somehow immune, or "safe", as personal property tax valuations increased and were abused even further.  That made the tax ripe for abolishment and was finally repealed in 1969.   

This may be the way it plays out in North Dakota, as polling shows that the majority of North Dakotans, while angry and screaming for property tax reform, may not be ready to eliminate the tax just yet.  Sometimes you have to wait until sheep are sheered down past the skin with blood drawn before any change happens.  And that will happen, even if Measure 2 is defeated today.  Taxes on residential property just went up 7%, while property tax on agricultural land are increasing this year by a whopping 27% (commercial property by only 3%, go figure).  Those are just the state-wide averages, which far outstrip the rate of inflation.  Some farmers and ranchers are hopping mad, who received notices in the past two weeks that the property tax on their particular land is increasing anywhere from 70% to 200% in some cases.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The people of CA actually has near the highest property taxes in the US, especially in the coastal areas from the Bay to the Mexican border where millions and millions of people live.  Orange County and LA, despite having near the highest property taxes in the US, experienced a massive bubble.  As did the area just inland of OC and LA.  FL is also a high property tax state.


What Prop 13 does is to lock in the valuation of the property (tax basis) at what you purchased it at with a maximum raise in property taxes of two percent in a year.  If the property is sold, then it gets re-assessed for tax purposes at the new value it sold at.  This offers protection from your neighbors inflating property values by paying more than you did from causing your property taxes to rise and possibly taxing people out of homes they bought long ago. 

How does the California property tax rate compare to other states? California is one of the lowest actually.

Figures from a 2007 New York Times chart shows CA rates about half the national average (0.68% vs 1.38%) List has all states so I am not going to copy- visit the link to see how your state stacks up.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...ptaxrates.html North Dakota? 1.84%.  Interesting to see New Hampshire listed as highest- 2.21%. Ooops, Texas has them beat at 2.57%.   Hawaii is lowest- 0.40% and lowest on the "mainland" Alabama- 0.65%.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Figures from a 2007 New York Times chart shows CA rates about half the national average (0.68% vs 1.38%) List has all states so I am not going to copy- visit the link to see how your state stacks up.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...ptaxrates.html North Dakota? 1.84%.  Interesting to see New Hampshire listed as highest- 2.21%. Ooops, Texas has them beat at 2.57%.   Hawaii is lowest- 0.40% and lowest on the "mainland" Alabama- 0.65%. California one of the lowest actually.


I said: "The people of CA actually has near the highest property taxes in the US, especially in the coastal areas from the Bay to the Mexican border where millions and millions of people live. Orange County and LA, despite having near the highest property taxes in the US, experienced a massive bubble. As did the area just inland of OC and LA. FL is also a high property tax state."

I was referring to the amount of property taxes paid for a home, not the rate.  Rates vary wildly in and between states.  Parts of NH have a rate of 0% while other parts of a rate of 3.5%  As for the actual amount of property taxes paid, people in the areas I described pay near the highest.  The same is true for some of the people in IL, TX, NJ, NH, ME, VT, CT, RI, FL, MA, PA, WI, OR, WA and MD.  

I agree, if you are looking at the average rate for the state, your reply was completely correct.  I was talking about what people pay in property tax, the bills

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I said: "The people of CA actually has near the highest property taxes in the US, especially in the coastal areas from the Bay to the Mexican border where millions and millions of people live. Orange County and LA, despite having near the highest property taxes in the US, experienced a massive bubble. As did the area just inland of OC and LA. FL is also a high property tax state."
> 
> I was referring to the amount of property taxes paid for a home, not the rate.  Rates vary wildly in and between states.  Parts of NH have a rate of 0% while other parts of a rate of 3.5%  As for the actual amount of property taxes paid, people in the areas I described pay near the highest.  The same is true for some of the people in IL, TX, NJ, NH, ME, VT, CT, RI, FL, MA, PA, WI, OR, WA and MD.  
> 
> I agree, if you are looking at the average rate for the state, your reply was completely correct.  I was talking about what people pay in property tax, the bills


Since incomes and costs of living including housing prices vary, the tax rate is, I think, a better comparison. What percent of income is going to taxes? If a millionare is paying $100 in taxes and a poor person is paying $50 in taxes is the poor person actually paying less in taxes?  He had to work more hours to get the money to pay them even though the dollar amount is lower and loses a higher percent of his income.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Since incomes and costs of living including housing prices vary, the tax rate is, I think, a better comparison. What percent of income is going to taxes? If a millionare is paying $100 in taxes and a poor person is paying $50 in taxes is the poor person actually paying less in taxes?  He had to work more hours to get the money to pay them even though the dollar amount is lower and loses a higher percent of his income.


We will have to disagree.  When I think of property taxes, I think of amount paid.  Most of the people paying $5000+ in property taxes per year in CA, NJ, NH, NY, RI, MA, VT, CT and so on aren't millionaires.

Either way, the lowest amount of property taxes paid and the lowest rates are found in AK and NH.  The highest rates are in liberal/statist poor communities in places like NY, NJ, NH and TX.

As for this vote in ND, I don't see why there are so many thread about it and I actually agree with Roy that many people on the RPFs don't really understand the property taxes vs. sales taxes vs. income taxes issue.  However, I also greatly disagree with Roy on that issue.  Perhaps I'm wrong

----------


## schiffheadbaby

So long as Roy believes in property taxes he believes we are forever serfs to the state.

And yet people here support this?  What a joke

----------


## cubical

Property taxes... where you owe the state for existing.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I think property taxes are one of the worst taxes but states and local governments like them because they are generally "recession" proof which gives them a pretty much guaranteed stream of income in good times and bad. Things like sales taxes move up and down with the economy- while demands for government services tend to move in the opposite direction which makes for a double squeeze in tough times- less money and higher expenses.  In US history, the recent collapse of housing prices is a rarity.

----------


## redbluepill

> wait is someone a fan of Ron Paul and an advocate of property taxes?
> 
> I'm very confused these days


I am a Ron Paul fan and an advocate of abolishing every tax except the land value tax, pollution taxes, and user fees.

----------


## redbluepill

> Property taxes... where you owe the state for existing.


I do not support property taxes as they are now (where you pay more for the improvements you made on the land).

However, I do support land taxes based on the value of the land minus your improvements.

You owe the state nothing for existing. You do owe the community for the privilege of having exclusive access to what nature provides. By the way, before you call me a communist or socialist Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson both agreed with this view.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> Many people do. Especially those who get paid with them.


 must be a tax assessor.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> I think property taxes are one of the worst taxes but states and local governments like them because they are generally "recession" proof .


They believe they are recession proof. What does a homes price has to do with taxes? The simply reassess.

----------


## redbluepill

> This needs to spread across the country like a wildfire.  There is something horribly wrong with a system that can steal an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street.





> Dozens of studies in dozens of cities have shown that most home owners pay less under land value tax than under property tax, and much less than under income taxes. The only exceptions we have seen are where only a small minority of residents can afford home ownership or where businesses have been so overtaxed that demand for business properties has been discouraged.


http://www.savingcommunities.org/iss...xes/landvalue/

----------


## Kluge

> I do not support property taxes as they are now (where you pay more for the improvements you made on the land).
> 
> However, I do support land taxes based on the value of the land minus your improvements.
> 
> You owe the state nothing for existing. You do owe the community for the privilege of having exclusive access to what nature provides. By the way, before you call me a communist or socialist Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson both agreed with this view.


I'd support a one-time only land tax, anything beyond that is the government having the ability to take all of your land based on a whim. And once they start extracting money from you on a regular basis, they will continue to squeeze until they can do so no longer.

And please point out where Paine and Jefferson stated that one must pay for access to nature through the government threatening to steal your property.

----------


## redbluepill

> must be a tax assessor.


Maybe he has a point. Do some research. 

http://schalkenbach.org/henry-george/the-single-tax/
http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.0
http://earthfreedom.net/faq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc

----------


## redbluepill

> I'd support a one-time only land tax, anything beyond that is the government having the ability to take all of your land based on a whim. And once they start extracting money from you on a regular basis, they will continue to squeeze until they can do so no longer.


The LVT is based on the market value of the land. Once the government declares how much it can tax it is no longer the LVT.




> And please point out where Paine and Jefferson stated that one must pay for access to nature through the government threatening to steal your property.


"Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds... from this ground-rent ... I ... propose ... to create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person ... (a) sum." (Agrarian Justice, 1795-6) 
http://www.earthrights.net/wg/q-country.html


"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a commonstock for man to labour and live on." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, dated October 28, 1785
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/...an_Ideals.html

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I think property taxes are one of the worst taxes but states and local governments like them because they are generally "recession" proof which gives them a pretty much guaranteed stream of income in good times and bad.


Yes, that is what makes it so pernicious - people can go through good times or bad, but the state and all those who suckle from the teats of state are selfish self-preservationists who want immunity from bad times -- to insulate themselves from hardships endured by those who are prone to market risks and suffer when the economy is bad (usually at the hands of the economy-distorting and meddling state).   It's nothing but mafioso in its effect - "Hard times? $#@! you, pay me. Lost your job? $#@! you, pay us even more, we have needs, and we're not losing ours." 




> I am a Ron Paul fan and an advocate of abolishing every tax except the land value tax, pollution taxes, and user fees.


FYI, Ron Paul is a staunch outspoken supporter of ND's Measure 2, which would constitutionally abolish and prohibit ALL ad valorem taxes in that state, including LVT.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

[QUOTE=Roy L;4489278]Compared to most other taxes on the books, anyway.  The statistical relationship is very clear: low property tax states are mostly basket cases, high property tax states are better in almost every way.  There are good economic reasons for that.  You just don't know enough economics to be aware of them.




please, enlighten us.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Roy L
> 
> 
> Compared to most other taxes on the books, anyway.  The statistical relationship is very clear: low property tax states are mostly basket cases, high property tax states are better in almost every way.  There are good economic reasons for that.  You just don't know enough economics to be aware of them.
> 
> 
> please, enlighten us.


Roy's not here to enlighten. He's only here to point out our evil lies and our refusal to know indisputable facts of objective reality (basically, any conclusion he has made or belief or theory he holds to be true).

----------


## redbluepill

> FYI, Ron Paul is a staunch outspoken supporter of ND's Measure 2, which would constitutionally abolish and prohibit ALL ad valorem taxes in that state, including LVT.


There are issues I disagree with Paul on. This is one of them.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

This thread has made me lose some serious hope...

People are actually arguing FOR property tax?!?

For what reason!? I've read through this thread and I haven't seen 1 good reason why except we pay less on another type of system...

WE SHOULDN'T PAY ANYTHING!

----------


## Chester Copperpot

so how did the vote go

----------


## Keith and stuff

> so how did the vote go


The votes are still being counted.
http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsSW....ype=SW&map=CTY

Precincts Reporting
265 of 426
Yes 22%
No 78%

----------


## jclay2

Eliminating the property tax is so great because it actually enables you to own and control assets that are rightfully yours. Something bought and paid in full should not have a never ending annual liability to the government just because it exists. Also, this will force the government to tax in more direct ways which should help wake up the populace to just how bad they are screwed.

----------


## redbluepill

> This thread has made me lose some serious hope...
> 
> People are actually arguing FOR property tax?!?


The people you're referring to argue for a land value tax.

Libertarian thinker Albert Jay Nock believed you could not have a just society without the LVT. David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party was an LVT supporter. Milton Friedman also favored the LVT over any other tax, going as far as to say we should tax improvements as little as possible and land as much as possible.





> For what reason!?


Many reasons. Read up.

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload...f_land_tax.pdf
http://schalkenbach.org/henry-george/the-single-tax/
http://www.savingcommunities.org/iss...xes/landvalue/





> WE SHOULDN'T PAY ANYTHING!


Tell that to your landlord, who is by definition a government.

http://libertythinkers.com/education...r-land-rights/

----------


## redbluepill

> Eliminating the property tax is so great because it actually enables you to own and control assets that are rightfully yours.


It encourages speculation and keeping land idle.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> The people you're referring to argue for a land value tax.
> 
> Libertarian thinker Albert Jay Nock believed you could not have a just society without the LVT. David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party was an LVT supporter. Milton Friedman also favored the LVT over any other tax, going as far as to say we should tax improvements as little as possible and land as much as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many reasons. Read up.
> 
> ...


You believe that you cannot have a just society without taxes? Define *just society*. Regardless of your definition, I want to live in a *free society*. The only tax I would tolerate in a free society is a tariff or taxation along the boarder of the State. Any other tax is unacceptable for a free people.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> It encourages speculation and keeping land idle.


Define land ownership. I, as the founders did, believe that if you do not use your land then you do not own it, it's called homesteading.

----------


## redbluepill

> You believe that you cannot have a just society without taxes?


Have you read anything I wrote? I believe in abolishing all taxes save the LVT and user fees. Other public services can be paid for through user fees (in fact, I consider the LVT a user fee).





> Define *just society*. Regardless of your definition, I want to live in a *free society*.


'Just society' and 'free society' are one-in-the-same. You cannot have a free society when a small percent of the population owns the vast majority of useable land.





> The only tax I would tolerate in a free society is a tariff or taxation along the boarder of the State. Any other tax is unacceptable for a free people.


So you believe in protectionism? How unlibertarian. ;-)

----------


## redbluepill

> Define land ownership. I, as the founders did, believe that if you do not use your land then you do not own it, it's called homesteading.


Tell that to 99% of the Von Miseans who believe absentee landowning is perfecting okay.

But this begs the question, how much labor is required to own land and how much of the land can be claimed?

----------


## Zippyjuan

LVT isn't really a tax, it is a rental fee. In this case, you don't own land- the government does. Which is also true of property taxes. You can get rid of the mortgage portion of ownership costs but not the tax (rental) part.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> Have you read anything I wrote? I believe in abolishing all taxes save the LVT and user fees. Other public services can be paid for through user fees (in fact, I consider the LVT a user fee).
> 
> 
>  No I have not.
> 
> 'Just society' and 'free society' are one-in-the-same. You cannot have a free society when a small percent of the population owns the vast majority of useable land.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> ...


Protectionism is an economic idea that suggests that tariffs increase economic production, I disagree entirely. But If I must accept *one* tax I will accept a tax on products that come from outside U.S. boarders. A LVT sounds much more authoritarian and economically depressing than a small tariff in my opinion.

----------


## redbluepill

> LVT isn't really a tax, it is a rental fee.


This is true.




> In this case, you don't own land- the government does.


This is not true. Government has no say in how one uses the land. It only collects the revenue for what rightfully belongs to the community (which created the land value in the first place).




> Which is also true of property taxes. You can get rid of the mortgage portion of ownership costs but not the tax (rental) part.


Difference between today's property taxes and the LVT: 

Property tax = Land value+value of improvements you made on the land

LVT = Land value - value of improvements you made on the land

----------


## redbluepill

> Protectionism is an economic idea that suggests that tariffs increase economic production, I disagree entirely. But If I must accept *one* tax I will accept a tax on products that come from outside U.S. boarders. A LVT sounds much more authoritarian and economically depressing than a small tariff in my opinion.


So you'd rather tax productive activity (trading goods and services) over unproductive activity (absentee landlordism and speculation)?

----------


## Roy L

> Eliminating the property tax is so great because it actually enables you to own and control assets that are rightfully yours.


No, it enables you to remove others' rights to liberty, with government's help, and not make any compensation.



> Something bought and paid in full


It was never bought and paid in full, stop lying.  You knew when you bought it that you would have to pay the property taxes in perpetuity to keep it, stop lying.  You know that the title was issued by government with no undertaking whatever that the taxes would never be increased, stop lying.  You bought a limited privilege of violating others' rights, not a product of labor that could rightly be owned in the first place, stop lying.



> should not have a never ending annual liability to the government just because it exists.


The liability is not just because the land exists, stop lying, but because it exists without any help from the landowner or any previous landowner, and you claim a never-ending privilege of depriving others of it.  Why would you imagine you could get a never-ending -- indeed ever-increasing -- flow of benefits, and not pay anything for them?  Is it because you are infinitely greedy for unearned wealth, and want government to give you power to steal the fruits of others' labor and contribute nothing in return??

How could an ongoing, never-ending claim against the liberty of everyone else in the community ever be bought and paid for in full?



> Also, this will force the government to tax in more direct ways which should help wake up the populace to just how bad they are screwed.


Oh, the populace are being royally screwed, all right.  They are being bent over a cactus and {^(|<ed up the @$$ with a 2x4.  They are forced to pay taxes to government to fund desired services and infrastructure, and must then pay greedy, idle, parasitic landowners full market value for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for, so that the landowners can pocket one of those payments in return for contributing exactly nothing.

That is the exact, literal, indisputable truth.  You just have to refuse to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

----------


## redbluepill

This video sums up how the LVT would create a JUST and FREE society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> Tell that to 99% of the Von Miseans who believe absentee landowning is perfecting okay.
> 
> But this begs the question, how much labor is required to own land and how much of the land can be claimed?


I do not care what the majority of Misean's' or Marxist's believe because the majority is usually wrong, especially when used as a statistic. If you use your labor to change the appearance of earthly land then you own it. Usually a fence works. If not, a jury of your peers.

----------


## Roy L

> So you'd rather tax productive activity (trading goods and services) over unproductive activity (absentee landlordism and speculation)?


Yes, Gumba -- and Steven, and Helmuth, and Travylr, and all the rest -- wants to steal from producers and give the money to idle, greedy, parasitic landowners in return for exactly nothing.  And if we object to this blatant wealth redistribution scam, they accuse us of the very sin of which they are themselves most guilty: rationalizing theft.  That is very much the point.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> This is true.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. Government has no say in how one uses the land. It only collects the revenue for what rightfully belongs to the community (which created the land value in the first place).
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between today's property taxes and the LVT: 
> ...


If I own the land and not the government then nothing "rightfully belongs to the community". It is mine.  If the government ("community") owns it, then you can make that claim.  The community did not create the land and any improvements to it will be done by me so they have no "value they created" on my land. Unless they want to pay my costs for putting a home or business on the land. Then they are creating value on my land. 

If the property belongs to the community and they get credit for "adding value" to my land- then perhaps they should be the ones paying any taxes on that "added value". 

If I improve my land and you wish to tax me on improvements I make, can you justify taxing me over and over and over forever into the future for any improvements I make this year? Say I add a house worth $100,000.  Or should any improvements simply be taxed when the improvement is made and not again every following year? If I made no improvements to my land this year, I should owe zero in improvement taxes (doing nothing did not add any value to the land- it is still as it was last year).  If you want to encourge good use of the land and to have people improve it this is not the way to do it. It discourages improvements. 

This is sounding more like a co-op where everybody shares everything.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> So you'd rather tax productive activity (trading goods and services) over unproductive activity (absentee landlordism and speculation)?


I would much rather tax optional activity and reenact homesteading than tax mandatory activity and allow for the unlawful gluttony of land ownership.

----------


## Roy L

> I do not care what the majority of Misean's' or Marxist's believe because the majority is usually wrong, especially when used as a statistic.


But they are right more often than you.



> If you use your labor to change the appearance of earthly land then you own it.


No, of course you don't.  What a ridiculous, fatuous claim.  How could merely defacing a piece of land remove others' rights to liberty?  How about this for a better claim: if I use my labor to refute a stupid lie you have told, I own you.

How does it feel to be my property, slave?



> Usually a fence works.


Only if backed by government force, as the range wars of the Old West proved.



> If not, a jury of your peers.


Hehe.  "Peers" meaning "fellow land thieves."  Nice.

----------


## Roy L

> I would much rather tax optional activity and reenact homesteading than tax mandatory activity


There is nothing mandatory about landowning, stop lying.



> and allow for the unlawful gluttony of land ownership.


The what?

----------


## redbluepill

I'll bb later to respond.

----------


## Roy L

> I'd support a one-time only land tax, anything beyond that is the government having the ability to take all of your land based on a whim.


It's not your land, and whim has nothing to do with it, stop lying.



> And once they start extracting money from you on a regular basis, they will continue to squeeze until they can do so no longer.


That's the beauty of recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit: you pay the exact right amount, because government can't get any more than by asking for the exact right amount.



> And please point out where Paine and Jefferson stated that one must pay for access to nature through the government threatening to steal your property.


It is not your property, and it is the landowner who does the stealing, which might explain why he is the one getting rich without doing anything productive, stop lying.

----------


## Roy L

> I don't believe Roy L statement on why the housing bubble happened I don't think property taxes had much to do with it.  It was more about over priced houses do to easy credit and people willing to pay too much for houses.  It was about the greed of banks and the subprime loans.


The supply of bankster greed is always infinite.  The four states that got hit the hardest were states where property taxes were low and declining.  States with high property taxes avoided the worst of the bubble.



> Would there be a capitol gains tax on the sale of the property once it was sold?  Just thinking here.


Probably not.  That would reduce the amount of free welfare subsidy money being given to landowners.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> The supply of bankster greed is always infinite. The four states that got hit the hardest were states where property taxes were low and declining. States with high property taxes avoided the worst of the bubble.


Why do you think the high property taxes stopped the harmful effects of the bubble? What makes you so sure that it was the property taxes that saved these states from a worse outcome?

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> No, of course you don't.  What a ridiculous, fatuous claim.  How could merely defacing a piece of land remove others' rights to liberty?  How about this for a better claim: if I use my labor to refute a stupid lie you have told, I own you.
> .


Homesteading is a important part of libertarian philosophy that promotes that only the improvement of land warrants land ownership. If you deface property you obviously do not own it. All the founders including Jefferson and Franklin agree with this. Here is the Judge to explain it for you. Go the 1 minute mark.

----------


## Roy L

> The people of CA actually has near the highest property taxes in the US,


No, they do not, stop lying.



> especially in the coastal areas from the Bay to the Mexican border where millions and millions of people live.


The great majority pay little property tax, thanks to Prop 13.



> Orange County and LA, despite having near the highest property taxes in the US, experienced a massive bubble.  As did the area just inland of OC and LA.  FL is also a high property tax state.


Flat-out lies.  CA has the second lowest property taxes of any state as a fraction of both total property value and state and local revenue.  FL is also a low property tax state:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/pro...009-three-year

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> But they are right more often than you.


I disagree.




> Only if backed by government force, as the range wars of the Old West proved.


Fences work because they use physical force, not government force. Have you ever seen a police officer try to hop a fence? It's an ugly seen.




> Hehe.  "Peers" meaning "fellow land thieves."  Nice.


"Peers" meaning your "neighbors", the closest strangers to you. I think your neighbors would know if your land is in use or not.

----------


## Roy L

> Homesteading is a important part of libertarian philosophy that promotes that only the improvement of land warrants land ownership.


How could improving land remove others' rights to use it?



> If you deface property you obviously do not own it.


It's not property, and you obviously do not own it in any case.



> All the founders including Jefferson and Franklin agree with this.


Garbage.



> Here is the Judge to explain it for you. Go the 1 minute mark.


Yes, and I explained to you why I own you.  Why do you presume to violate my property rights?

----------


## Roy L

> Fences work because they use physical force, not government force.


No, they work because they are BACKED by physical force, especially government force.



> "Peers" meaning your "neighbors", the closest strangers to you. I think your neighbors would know if your land is in use or not.


They might want it for themselves.

----------


## Roy L

> Why do you think the high property taxes stopped the harmful effects of the bubble? What makes you so sure that it was the property taxes that saved these states from a worse outcome?


The Net Present Value Equation makes it certain.

V = r / (d + t - g)

When t gets too low, and g gets close to d, you approach a divide by zero fault.  That is effectively what happens in land booms.  Keep t up, and the sum t + d never gets down to where it's close to g.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No, they do not, stop lying.
> 
> The great majority pay little property tax, thanks to Prop 13.
> 
> Flat-out lies.  CA has the second lowest property taxes of any state as a fraction of both total property value and state and local revenue.  FL is also a low property tax state:
> 
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/pro...009-three-year


Hawaii has the lowest property tax rate in the country- by a large margin. How did they do in the housing crisis? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...ptaxrates.html

What do the states with the biggest impact of the housing bubble have in common?  Desirable weather.  The only "bad weather" state is Michigan- and that had other serious economic problems as well. Why did Nebraska and Wyoming fare well?  Fewer people wanting to move there.

The five worst: Michigan, California, Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...g-markets?lite  Michigan has a higher than average property tax rate and Florida and Arizona are close to the average (though below it).

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> How could improving land remove others' rights to use it?
> 
> It's not property, and you obviously do not own it in any case.
> 
> Garbage.
> 
> *Yes, and I explained to you why I own you.  Why do you presume to violate my property rights?*


You explained that you owned me because of my ridiculous lying. If I am, and I am, telling the truth then you have no recourse. Even under your absurd and un-misesian definition of property rights.

and BTW, _garbage_ is not an intellectual argument.

----------


## Roy L

> You believe that you cannot have a just society without taxes? Define *just society*. Regardless of your definition, I want to live in a *free society*.


You contradict yourself.  A society where others own your right to liberty is not a free society.



> The only tax I would tolerate in a free society is a tariff or taxation along the boarder of the State. Any other tax is unacceptable for a free people.


Sez who?

----------


## Roy L

> You explained that you owned me because of my ridiculous lying. If I am, and I am, telling the truth then you have no recourse. Even under your absurd and un-misesian definition of property rights.


I _proved_ you lied, so I own you.  You are my property.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> *You contradict yourself.  A society where others own your right to liberty is not a free society.*
> 
> Sez who?


I agree but you somehow believe that a society where you must pay taxes to your community or be throw into a cage is a free society. How do you rationalize this?

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> I _proved_ you lied, so I own you.  You are my property.


Funny I don't think you have proved anything. I don't believe you can own other people, I am not a slave owner. I'm a free man. Why would I submit to you or a LVT collector? How are you different from him?

----------


## Roy L

> Hawaii has the lowest property tax rate in the country- by a large margin. How did they do in the housing crisis? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...ptaxrates.html


What does "average property tax rate" mean?  Measured how?



> What do the states with the biggest impact of the housing bubble have in common?  Desirable weather.


Nonsense.  Weather's nice in OR, and it wasn't hit much.



> The only "bad weather" state is Michigan- and that had other serious economic problems as well. Why did Nebraska and Wyoming fare well?  Fewer people wanting to move there.


Non sequitur.

----------


## Roy L

> Funny, I don't believe anyone owns me.


Funny, I don't believe anyone owns land.



> That's why I'm a free man.


You are no more free than anyone who is deprived of their liberty to use what nature provided.



> Why would I submit to you or a LVT collector? How are you different from him?


The question is, how am I different from a landowner, claiming to own land on no more basis than my claim to own you?

----------


## Roy L

> I agree but you somehow believe that a society where you must pay taxes to your community or be throw into a cage is a free society.


Wrong.  If you don't pay LVT, you just don't get to keep depriving the community of the opportunity.  You don't get thrown in a cage, or lose any rightful property, or have your wages garnisheed, or anything else.



> How do you rationalize this?


I don't advocate it.  How do you rationalize forcibly removing people's rights to liberty?

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> Funny, I don't believe anyone owns land.
> 
> You are no more free than anyone who is deprived of their liberty to use what nature provided.
> 
> The question is, how am I different from a landowner, claiming to own land on no more basis than my claim to own you?


If land is not ownable then who makes it so? Does government? I would rather suffer under the tyranny of one small landowner than suffer under the State. If you allow the State to tax private land then you are allowing the State to grow and liberty to shrink. I would not agree to such a policy.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> What does "average property tax rate" mean?  Measured how?
> 
> Nonsense.  Weather's nice in OR, and it wasn't hit much.
> 
> Non sequitur.


If you read my post or followed the link you could have seen that the national average property tax rate for states was 1.38%. But that's OK- here- let me give it for you again since you missed it.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...ptaxrates.html  The list of state averages was compiled by Moody's and published in this case by the New York Times. How were you determining who had high and low tax rates? 



> Nonsense. Weather's nice in OR, and it wasn't hit much.


Those who prefer sunshine (which aside from Michigan the others have lots of).  Yeah, Texas did OK too.  So you would be right- weather is not much more help than the property tax rates in predicing which states would be hit hard by the housing bubble. 

Lowest average state property tax rates according to my link (which according to your theory should have had it the worst in the housing crisis): 
1) Hawaii 0.40%
2) Alabama 0.65%
3) California 0.68%
4) New Mexico 0.72%
5) Arkansas 0.88%
6) West Virginia (0.95%)
7) Louisiana (1.02%) 
8) Oklahoma (1.03%)
9) Tennessee (1.07%)
10) Colorado (1.08%)



Only one of those ten lowest average property tax states (California) also made the list of Ten Worst Hit States:  
(the first five I listed earlier):
 1) Nevada
2) Florida 
3) Arizona
4) California
5) Michigan

The next five: 
6) Idaho
7) Rhode Island
8) Georgia
9) Washington
10) Maryland 

Source on that: http://247wallst.com/2012/02/29/stat...ing-markets/2/

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Roy L
> 
> 
> The four states that got hit the hardest were states where property taxes were low and declining.  States with high property taxes avoided the worst of the bubble.
> 
> 
> Why do you think the high property taxes stopped the harmful effects of the bubble? What makes you so sure that it was the property taxes that saved these states from a worse outcome?


Maybe it's because he's pulling stats completely out of his rear end and drawing meaningless conclusions about them.  

The states hit hardest by bubble crash were California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.  See anything special about them in terms of property tax?  Do those four states pop out at you in a way that would cause anyone to have an "ah ha!" moment?  



There is ZERO correlation, let alone causation that could be deduced, between high or low property taxes and how a state fared in the housing bubble collapse. 


According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the lowest property taxes (where speculation and devastation caused bu\y the crash should have been most rampant by Roy's logic) are:

    Louisiana - 0.18%    Hawaii - 0.26%    Alabama - 0.33%    Delaware - 0.43%    West Virginia - 0.49%    South Carolina - 0.50%    Arkansas - 0.52%    Mississippi - 0.52%    New Mexico - 0.55%    Wyoming - 0.58%

Nothing to see here, most of these states were more or less unaffected. 

According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the highest property taxes are:

    New Jersey - 1.89%    New Hampshire - 1.86%    Texas - 1.81%    Wisconsin - 1.76%    Nebraska - 1.70%    Illinois - 1.73%    Connecticut - 1.63%    Michigan - 1.62%    Vermont - 1.59%    North Dakota - 1.42%

None of the top four are on this list either, and yet most of these states -- the TOP TEN in terms of highest property taxes -- suffered as more affluent states that were hit quite hard by the crash.  

The four states hit hardest by the bubble collapse were quite average in terms of property taxes:

*State, Property Tax as a percentage of home value, and national ranking:*

Arizona - .72% - Rank 35
California - .74% - Rank 33
Nevada - .97% - Rank 24
Florida - .84% -Rank 23

Thus completely and absolutely falsifying Roy's "low property tax" causation theory.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> Wrong.  If you don't pay LVT, you just don't get to keep depriving the community of the opportunity.  You don't get thrown in a cage, or lose any rightful property, or have your wages garnisheed, or anything else.
> 
> I don't advocate it.  How do you rationalize forcibly removing people's rights to liberty?


Sure but what if two different communities claim ownership upon the same land. Who gets it? How is it disputed? Would not this lead to increased power for the State and decreased liberty for the people?

I agree that land is a special commodity but I disagree that land ownership should be determined by anything other than: "Hey they've been living here a while haven't they?" First come, first serve, works for me.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Maybe it's because he's pulling stats completely out of his rear end and drawing meaningless conclusions about them.  
> 
> The states hit hardest by bubble crash were California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.  See anything special about them in terms of property tax?  Do those four states pop out at you in a way that would cause anyone to have an "ah ha!" moment?  
> 
> 
> 
> There is ZERO correlation, let alone causation that could be deduced, between high or low property taxes and how a state fared in the housing bubble collapse.


Your argument is confusing.  You say high property taxes (referring to high property tax bills in terms of dollars) as must people refer to high property taxes.  But, later in your post you mentioned high property taxes,specifically referring to the property tax rates.  You cannot switch back and forth between the 2 interchangeably and not expect to confuse people.

I agreed with some of what you were saying but was too confused by what you did to completely follow what you were saying.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Your argument is confusing.  You say high property taxes (referring to high property tax bills in terms of dollars) as must people refer to high property taxes.  But, later in your post you mentioned high property taxes,specifically referring to the property tax rates.  You cannot switch back and forth between the 2 interchangeably and not expect to confuse people.


I can see where that could cause confusion.  I threw in the map (not rate but median paid by county) to make the point that it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a high rate or a high amount paid - there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between either and how a state fared in the collapse.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The four states that got hit the hardest were states where property taxes were low and declining. States with high property taxes avoided the worst of the bubble.


  I agree with the point that there is no corelation between high or low property tax rates and problems experienced in the housing crisis.

My figures came to the same conclusion.

My lists only found one of the ten lowest average property tax rate states also made the list of ten worst states in the housing crisis. No other names on the two lists are the same (total of 19 states between the two lists).

----------


## Roy L

> If land is not ownable then who makes it so?


Its inherent identity.



> Does government?


No, government only makes land (legally) ownable.  It was already unownable before there were any governments.



> I would rather suffer under the tyranny of one small landowner than suffer under the State.


Then you're a fool who prefers feudalism -- government by private landowner, as in Saudi Arabia -- to republican democracy, and Somalia to Slovenia.



> If you allow the State to tax private land


What would make land private in the first place, other than a state decree?  It didn't start out private, and there is no way it could rightfully become private.



> then you are allowing the State to grow and liberty to shrink.


Garbage.  The state is the only thing that can secure liberty against shrinkage by private tyrants.



> I would not agree to such a policy.


Yes, well, you don't know what you are talking about, as we've already established.  All you do is chant your "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense.

----------


## Kluge

> It's not your land, and whim has nothing to do with it, stop lying.
> 
> That's the beauty of recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit: you pay the exact right amount, because government can't get any more than by asking for the exact right amount.
> 
> It is not your property, and it is the landowner who does the stealing, which might explain why he is the one getting rich without doing anything productive, stop lying.


You're $#@!ing creepy, dude, and chock full of gibberish.

----------


## jclay2

How did the people of ND vote against this measure 3 to 1? Seriously WTF? People really do choose to build the prisons they are housed in. To bad they take the rest of the freedom loving people for the ride. I just want to be able to live without having 50 percent of my paycheck taken from me annually. I guess the people of ND don't see it this way.

----------


## kahless

Only a Communist would be in favor on denying a persons ability to own private property outright.  Those posting in favor off property taxes are the biggest threat to true freedom in my life time. 

It is bad enough now seeing people whom paid their entire lives for their homes only to lose it with one missed tax payment.  Senior citizens especially who their entire lives paid for and own their property are being put out in the street due to the scumbags that support property taxes.

If there is ever a civil war in this country, this issue will likely play a large role combined with the devaluation of the US dollar making it impossible for people to pay property taxes.  This is exactly what the Communists in both parties want in their quest to fulfill the #1 plank of the manifesto.  Of course they will never call it Communism.

----------


## shane77m

> How did the people of ND vote against this measure 3 to 1? Seriously WTF? People really do choose to build the prisons they are housed in. To bad they take the rest of the freedom loving people for the ride. I just want to be able to live without having 50 percent of my paycheck taken from me annually. I guess the people of ND don't see it this way.


I am just speculating but they were probably scared they would not have the police, fire department, schools and etc. I imagine the pro-tax folks put out a lot of fear mongering propaganda to convince people that the state would drift off into a black hole without property taxes.

----------


## Danan

One can own land like one can own everything else. Just because it doesn't necessarily need to be transformed by human labor to be "owned" doesn't mean that it can't be owned/everybody owns it. That's just completely esoteric reasoning. Your claim to own something has nothing to do with it. Everyone who argues to have a better claim than you do has to prove that to a third party (court).

For LVT-people LVT does not harm the non aggression principle because "society" owns all land and has a right to demand any fee they like - just like the king did in old monarchies. I call that BS. Most people would agree that you can in fact *own* land. They only support property taxes because they don't care for the non-aggression principle and aren't libertarians.


But I have one question to any LVT-supporter: Why is it that only US citizens collectively own all the land of the US? That doesn't make any sense. If nature created all land and it's value and homesteading is not a viable way to gain property why do people living in California have a right to benefit from wealth creation on New York's soil but people living in Ottawa, New Mexico and Paris don't? It's nice to see that LVT-people are nationalists who don't care for individualism.

Or do you favour a world government that collects LVT on the whole planet and distributes the revenue?

----------


## Roy L

> Only a Communist would be in favor on denying a persons ability to own private property outright.


We do not deny rightful property in products of labor, stop lying.

Only a greed-besotted, lying sack of $#!+ thinks everything should be private property.

Really?  The earth's atmosphere should be private property, so we have to pay some greedy swine rent for air to breathe?  The alphabet should be private property, so we have to pay royalties to the greedy owners of each letter every time we use it?

_REALLY??_

Give your silly head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall out.



> Those posting in favor off property taxes are the biggest threat to true freedom in my life time.


What a stupid lie.  Do you understand that America's Founding Fathers made a property tax on land the sole source of federal revenue in the Articles of Confederation?



> It is bad enough now seeing people whom paid their entire lives for their homes only to lose it with one missed tax payment.


That has never happened, stop lying.



> Senior citizens especially who their entire lives paid for and own their property are being put out in the street due to the scumbags that support property taxes.


Only lying sacks of $#!+ make such claims, which have never been documented, ever.



> If there is ever a civil war in this country, this issue will likely play a large role combined with the devaluation of the US dollar making it impossible for people to pay property taxes.


Why even bother making such stupid claims?



> This is exactly what the Communists in both parties want in their quest to fulfill the #1 plank of the manifesto.  Of course they will never call it Communism.


Because it wouldn't be.

----------


## shane77m

Go on a shopping spree.

http://www.revenue.alabama.gov/adval...transcript.htm

----------


## Roy L

> One can own land like one can own everything else.


I see.  So, one can own people, numbers, letters of the alphabet, the earth's atmosphere, the sun, _everything_?

Give your silly head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall out.



> Just because it doesn't necessarily need to be transformed by human labor to be "owned" doesn't mean that it can't be owned/everybody owns it.


Yes, it does, because that means owning it inherently violates others' rights to liberty just as much as owning numbers, people, or the sun would.



> That's just completely esoteric reasoning.


It is indisputable fact.  When you claim to own land, you purpose to remove my right to liberty. 


> Your claim to own something has nothing to do with it. Everyone who argues to have a better claim than you do has to prove that to a third party (court).


I see.  So the letters of the alphabet are all someone's property, we just don't know whose until a court decides?

What a stupid load of garbage.



> For LVT-people LVT does not harm the non aggression principle because "society" owns all land and has a right to demand any fee they like


Stop telling such stupid lies.  No one can rightly own land, but government has the job of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.  It CANNOT do that without LVT.  It is logically impossible, because exclusive tenure removes others' rights to liberty.



> - just like the king did in old monarchies.


The kings in old monarchies WERE THE LANDOWNERS.  Just like in Saudi Arabia, the Saud family owns the whole country.



> I call that BS.


Everything you have said so far is BS, and I have proved it.



> Most people would agree that you can in fact *own* land.


At one time, most people agreed that you could in fact *own* slaves.  So?



> They only support property taxes because they don't care for the non-aggression principle and aren't libertarians.


There is a difference between true libertarians and feudal "libertarians":

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html



> But I have one question to any LVT-supporter: Why is it that only US citizens collectively own all the land of the US?


No one owns it.



> That doesn't make any sense.


Your brainless garbage doesn't make any sense.



> If nature created all land and it's value


Government and the community created its value.  Nature created its physical qualities.



> and homesteading is not a viable way to gain property why do people living in California have a right to benefit from wealth creation on New York's soil but people living in Ottawa, New Mexico and Paris don't?


The US government can only exercise its function of securing and reconciling people's rights in the area where it is sovereign.



> It's nice to see that LVT-people are nationalists who don't care for individualism.


It's nice to see that anti-LVT liars always lie.



> Or do you favour a world government that collects LVT on the whole planet and distributes the revenue?


No.

----------


## Roy L

> Maybe it's because he's pulling stats completely out of his rear end and drawing meaningless conclusions about them.


Lie.



> The states hit hardest by bubble crash were California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.  See anything special about them in terms of property tax?  Do those four states pop out at you in a way that would cause anyone to have an "ah ha!" moment?  
> 
> 
> 
> There is ZERO correlation, let alone causation that could be deduced, between high or low property taxes and how a state fared in the housing bubble collapse.


Maybe because property tax AMOUNT is not property tax RATE?  All your map shows is the median property tax payment for counties.  So the dark colors are just places where there are large, valuable farms, wealthy communities, etc.



> According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the lowest property taxes (where speculation and devastation caused bu\y the crash should have been most rampant by Roy's logic) are:
> 
>     Louisiana - 0.18%    Hawaii - 0.26%    Alabama - 0.33%    Delaware - 0.43%    West Virginia - 0.49%    South Carolina - 0.50%    Arkansas - 0.52%    Mississippi - 0.52%    New Mexico - 0.55%    Wyoming - 0.58%
> 
> Nothing to see here, most of these states were more or less unaffected. 
> 
> According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the highest property taxes are:
> 
>     New Jersey - 1.89%    New Hampshire - 1.86%    Texas - 1.81%    Wisconsin - 1.76%    Nebraska - 1.70%    Illinois - 1.73%    Connecticut - 1.63%    Michigan - 1.62%    Vermont - 1.59%    North Dakota - 1.42%
> ...


How are these property tax rates being calculated?  Evidence that most of the top ten were hit hard?

The only way to calculate property tax rate is by dividing total property tax revenue by total property value.  By that measure, CA, NV, FL and AZ are all low property tax states.



> The four states hit hardest by the bubble collapse were quite average in terms of property taxes:
> 
> *State, Property Tax as a percentage of home value, and national ranking:*
> 
> Arizona - .72% - Rank 35
> California - .74% - Rank 33
> Nevada - .97% - Rank 24
> Florida - .84% -Rank 23
> 
> Thus completely and absolutely falsifying Roy's "low property tax" causation theory.


Nope.  In CA, for example, the rate is almost meaningless, as assessments are artificially held far below market by Prop 13.

----------


## Roy L

> How did the people of ND vote against this measure 3 to 1? Seriously WTF? People really do choose to build the prisons they are housed in. To bad they take the rest of the freedom loving people for the ride. I just want to be able to live without having 50 percent of my paycheck taken from me annually. I guess the people of ND don't see it this way.


They do.  And unlike you, they understand that high property taxes are a way to REDUCE TOTAL taxes.  See NH.

----------


## EcoWarrier

ND has to look ahead. It appears short term vote winning stunts are at hand here. 

Property tax? What is the property?  The buildings or the land? Property is the buildings - the CAPITAL.  LAND is not property.  It is collectively owned with title, a set of rights, given to parcels of land.  

By all means it is desirable to eliminate taxes on the property, but not the land. Tax the land by its value, all land. Have a single state/city tax - only LVT, nothing else.

ND is about to become a petro economy. The income from shale oil and gas must be invested in the state, for infrastructure, education, training in non-petro industries, etc, to give a mixed economy. When the oil runs out the state will be self-supporting and not end up a ghost state, like ex mining towns when the gold or ores run out. Look at what Johannesburg did. An ex mining town but via LVT stopped the city becoming a ghost town projecting the city to be an economic powerhouse. Look at:
Jo'burg should have died years ago


Tax the land by its values to ensure land does not end up in the hands of a few people.  Then land prices will not rise to ridiculous levels, as it did in Aberdeen in Scotland when it became an oil boom town.  LVT can pay for state and city services and promote enterprise. This eliminates any other state or city taxes.  Any surplus can be paid back to the people in a Citizens Dividend. Oil income can pay for future investment and nothing else. 

By not doing the above the future kids of ND are going to hate their grandparents when the oil runs out.

----------


## Tod

> This video sums up how the LVT would create a JUST and FREE society:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc



The premise of the video is wrong because it assumes that if only people had a chance, they would not be poor.  That somehow, if we could only get them out from under this evil monopolist, they would cease to be poor.  That is just plain false.  While some people might be less likely to be poor, others would be MORE likely to be poor.

So far none of these posts have convinced me that tax on land is "just".  Suppose I want to live a self-sufficient lifestyle out in the boondocks somewhere, not interested in participating in society.  Why should I have to pay any tax at all?  I want nothing to do with anyone and wouldn't care if there was water service, garbage service, roads or any of the rest of the "benefits" of society.  Why should I be penalized for merely existing and owning something?  Why should other people be able to steal from me in order to pay for "benefits" that THEY want?  What is "just" about that?

Shouldn't payment of a tax be based upon receiving a desired service?  If I want to drive on roads, I should pay a tax to pay for their construction/maintenance, etc.  Indirect benefits can be paid for through costs that include what someone had to pay to receive a benefit.  e.g. if I want to buy a product that gets brought to me via truck, included in the cost of that product is tax that the trucker had to pay for the road.

----------


## furface

> “When,” Ms. Beehler asked, “did we come to believe that government should get rich and we should get poor?”


I think that about says it all.

However, I think getting rid of the property tax entirely is too drastic.  I don't think there should be individual owner-occupied property taxes for houses and small businesses.  Larger entities & rentals should pay, though.

If you want certain services like fire protection, police enforcement, and schools you should pay for them at a market driven rate.

----------


## ctiger2

Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.

----------


## furface

> Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.


I tend agree with you.  However, it's not quite that simple.  There are costs associated with protecting property from trespass and theft.  It's legitimate to ask people to pay these costs.  In that vein there should be taxes on all personal possessions including assets like stocks & currency.  Before categorically disagreeing with this point of view, consider why government should protect you against theft for any piece of property and what are the costs of that protection.  I think modern property taxes go far beyond the pure cost of protection, though.

Enforcing a greater social purpose using property taxes is completely off the wall.  Things like government schools, police, fire, and welfare systems are better dealt with either privately or with consensual collectives.

----------


## redbluepill

> If I own the land and not the government then nothing "rightfully belongs to the community". It is mine.


From the perspective of a Georgist and most classical liberals you do not own it, you're merely renting it. The LVT is payment for the government-enforced privilege of having exclusive access to a piece of land.






> If the property belongs to the community and they get credit for "adding value" to my land- then perhaps they should be the ones paying any taxes on that "added value".


That makes no sense. Why should productive people pay more in taxes?




> If I improve my land and you wish to tax me on improvements I make, can you justify taxing me over and over and over forever into the future for any improvements I make this year? Say I add a house worth $100,000.  Or should any improvements simply be taxed when the improvement is made and not again every following year? If I made no improvements to my land this year, I should owe zero in improvement taxes (doing nothing did not add any value to the land- it is still as it was last year).  If you want to encourge good use of the land and to have people improve it this is not the way to do it. It discourages improvements.


For the hundredth time, LVT does not make you pay more for improvements you make on the land. Under the LVT, the owner of a plot of land with a skyscraper would pay the same as the owner of the plot with a parking lot next door.




> This is sounding more like a co-op where everybody shares everything.


If you did the research you would know thats false. Everything you create belongs to you and should be untaxed.

----------


## redbluepill

> I would much rather tax optional activity and reenact homesteading than tax mandatory activity and allow for the unlawful gluttony of land ownership.


You don't need to own land to be free.

----------


## redbluepill

> Homesteading is a important part of libertarian philosophy that promotes that only the improvement of land warrants land ownership. If you deface property you obviously do not own it. All the founders including Jefferson and Franklin agree with this.


Actually many of the Founding Fathers including Jefferson and Franklin liked the idea of a land tax. 

"Thomas Jefferson also saw that land monopoly made 
ordinary Europeans poor, while cheap land made Americans 
rich. He also proposed taxes on real estate to prevent land 
grabbers from driving land prices up."
http://savingcommunities.org/founder...hyfounders.pdf


They even had a land tax under the Articles of Confederation. But the landlords were too powerful to keep it alive under the Constitution.

Ben Franklin complained, Our legislators are all 
landholders, and they are not yet persuaded that all taxes are 
finally paid by the land Therefore, we have been forced into 
the mode of indirect taxes.
http://savingcommunities.org/founder...hyfounders.pdf

----------


## redbluepill

> Only a Communist would be in favor on denying a persons ability to own private property outright.


Communists believe in collective property. We're talking about common property, no different than the air you breathe and the water you drink. Let's make sure we're on the same page here.






> Those posting in favor off property taxes are the biggest threat to true freedom in my life time.


Those who believe in government-enforced privilege are the biggest threats to true freedom.




> It is bad enough now seeing people whom paid their entire lives for their homes only to lose it with one missed tax payment.  Senior citizens especially who their entire lives paid for and own their property are being put out in the street due to the scumbags that support property taxes.


"Most home owners pay less
Dozens of studies in dozens of cities have shown that most home owners pay less under land value tax than under property tax, and much less than under income taxes. The only exceptions we have seen are where only a small minority of residents can afford home ownership or where businesses have been so overtaxed that demand for business properties has been discouraged."
http://www.savingcommunities.org/iss...xes/landvalue/

----------


## redbluepill

> One can own land like one can own everything else.


Like slaves.

----------


## redbluepill

> But I have one question to any LVT-supporter: Why is it that only US citizens collectively own all the land of the US?


No one is talking about supporting collectivization here.




> If nature created all land and it's value


Who said anything about nature creating value?




> and homesteading is not a viable way to gain property why do people living in California have a right to benefit from wealth creation on New York's soil but people living in Ottawa, New Mexico and Paris don't? It's nice to see that LVT-people are nationalists who don't care for individualism. Or do you favour a world government that collects LVT on the whole planet and distributes the revenue?


First of all, I believe in decentralized government. I have even flirted with anarchist/geoanarchist ideals. Having local governments collects LVT makes sense. I live in Chicago. All those millions of acres Ted Turner owns in the western US does not affect me nearly as much as it affects people in, say, New Mexico.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.


it really is that simple, no one owns anything in this country, unless you produce your own energy, even a tv will not run. You never own land or a house or a car. you have to pay a tax or fee to use it legally. Or they eventually arrest you or take it. bottom line we are tax slaves and own nothing. We are slaves. We just have no pyramids to show for it. Most americans will eventually lose their property or houses or cars due to fees or taxes before they die. gov knows exactly how to make everyone slaves.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.


You own your wages. You worked hard for them.  You are taxed on them.  How stupid.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You own your wages. You worked hard for them.  You are taxed on them.  How stupid.


Which is just another way of saying that you don't own your own wages. You don't own your own wealth -- the fruits of your labors, in the case of wages.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Which is just another way of saying that you don't own your own wages.


You do own all of your own wages Until the state steals a part of your private income - your wages.The state has no moral right to appropriate private wealth when social wealth is there to be used for state expenditures - social wealth which is ignored.Social wealth which is privatized.Private individuals and organizations have no moral right to appropriate social wealth.
The state is totally wrong doing what it does.

----------


## Roy L

> The premise of the video is wrong because it assumes that if only people had a chance, they would not be poor.  That somehow, if we could only get them out from under this evil monopolist, they would cease to be poor.  That is just plain false.


It is fact, and the video is correct.



> While some people might be less likely to be poor, others would be MORE likely to be poor.


Evidence for this claim?  Of course not.



> So far none of these posts have convinced me that tax on land is "just".


Then you either haven't read, don't understand, or refuse to understand them.

To the extent that government spending on services and infrastructure is not just wasted or stolen by corruption, it is taken by landowners.  It is self-evident and indisputable that recovering what they take to *pay* for what they take is just.



> Suppose I want to live a self-sufficient lifestyle out in the boondocks somewhere, not interested in participating in society.  Why should I have to pay any tax at all?


You probably wouldn't; but if you are depriving someone else of opportunity, why wouldn't you expect to compensate them for what you are taking?

Next!



> I want nothing to do with anyone and wouldn't care if there was water service, garbage service, roads or any of the rest of the "benefits" of society.  Why should I be penalized for merely existing and owning something?


You aren't.  But you are forcibly depriving others of opportunity they would otherwise be at liberty to use, and you owe them for what you are taking from them.



> Why should other people be able to steal from me in order to pay for "benefits" that THEY want?


You are the one who is stealing from them, when you deprive them of access to benefits their taxes paid for.



> What is "just" about that?


Certainly not your description of LVT.



> Shouldn't payment of a tax be based upon receiving a desired service?


No.  You pay for a loaf of bread when you take it out of the store, not when you eat it.  If you let it go moldy, it does not mean you don't have to pay for it.  Therefore, the fact that you are depriving others of desired services suffices to establish that you owe compensation for them, whether you desire them or not.



> If I want to drive on roads, I should pay a tax to pay for their construction/maintenance, etc.


Why, when you are already paying landowners full market value for access to them?  Why should you pay for them _twice_ so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing nothing?



> Indirect benefits can be paid for through costs that include what someone had to pay to receive a benefit.


Like land rent....?



> e.g. if I want to buy a product that gets brought to me via truck, included in the cost of that product is tax that the trucker had to pay for the road.


Doubled, because he also had to pay landowners full market value for access to the road.

----------


## Roy L

> When, Ms. Beehler asked, did we come to believe that government should get rich and we should get poor?
> 			
> 		
> 
> I think that about says it all.


Well, it does prove that Ms Beehler is a stupid, greedy, evil, lying sack of $#!+.

Which government is getting rich?

Blank out.

Which landowner is getting poor?

Blank out.

Evil, lying filth.



> If you want certain services like fire protection, police enforcement, and schools you should pay for them at a market driven rate.


You have to pay landowners full market value for them anyway.

----------


## MozoVote

If I lived in North Dakota, I could imagine voting no on the referendum. The state government would find some other way to fund itself, and my fear would be a boost in the income tax to compensate.

Income taxes are almost always progressive. At least property taxes are ad-valorem and you can decide how much property you want to own and how much tax you will tolerate.

----------


## Roy L

> Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.


Such claims are just stupid, fatuous garbage.  Does your condo maintenance fee mean you don't own your condo?

Stop spewing such stupid, fatuous garbage.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Keith, what do you think about NH putting a constitutional Amendment like this forward?  Possible at some point in the future?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I would like to be able to know that my home, no matter what happens to my income or my life, is not going to be taken away from me because I cant pay a tax, said Susan Beehler, one in a group of North Dakotans who have pressed for an amendment to the states Constitution to end the property tax.


If you do not pay your mortgage you lose your home.  If you do not pay a host of other taxes you lose your home.  Why is this property tax so different to other due monies not paid?

----------


## MozoVote

> If you do not pay your mortgage you lose your home.  If you do not pay a host of other taxes you lose your home.  Why is this property tax so different to other due monies not paid?


If you own real property, failure to pay ANYONE could cause a judgement to be attached to your name. The judgement owner can then demand payment or have the court order your property sold to pay the debt if you won't comply. Real property is the *easiest* thing to discover and has very clear case law in how creditors can seize it.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Income taxes are almost always progressive.


But income taxes do exactly the opposite. A UK video but applies equaly to the USA, etc.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If you own real property, failure to pay ANYONE could cause a judgement to be attached to your name. The judgement owner can then demand payment or have the court order your property sold to pay the debt if you won't comply. Real property is the *easiest* thing to discover and has very clear case law in how creditors can seize it.


So not paying a property tax is no differnt to paying any other monies due then.  So why is it singled out?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> This needs to spread across the country like a wildfire.  There is something horribly wrong with a system that can steal an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street.


If the elderly widow owes money and measures are taken to retrieve what is owed, then why is this stealing?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I think Roy just likes taxes.


He actually does not. He likes us to have only one tax, the Single Tax, Land Valuation Tax. No others. A very simple tax. Land cannot be taken off-shore as the location of land is known to the inch. It cannot be avoided. Cheap to collect.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Such claims are just stupid, fatuous garbage.  Does your condo maintenance fee mean you don't own your condo?


Condo ownership is voluntarily collectivist form of conditional ownership from the onset of purchase, as a matter of contract, no differently than buying a house on condition of a private contract that makes your home part of a homeowner's association (HOA), even if the HOA is mismanaged, corrupt, harassing, combative, abusive, or deliberately equity-eroding, as THEY OFTEN ARE.  In either case, you SHOULD have a choice NOT to buy a condo, NOT to buy a residence that is part of a controlling, mandatory fee-collecting and ownership behavior-restricting or regulating body.  The extent to which you do not have this option or choice is the extent to which 'ownership' has been collectively and conditionally abrogated. 

You see PART of LVT going toward infrastructure or maintenance, and conclude that it's no different than a condo maintenance fee.  That comparison is your stupid, lying fatuous garbage at work.  Condo maintenance fees are specifically for services rendered that are DIRECTLY related to the localized maintenance of THAT private property only - which you want compared with the larger "community", as if we all lived in what amounts to nothing more than a scaled up condominium.  

Condo maintenance fees are not:

Based on the value of any part of the property, nor are theyCollected for redistribution to those outside the condo on the basis that they were excluded from ownership therein, nor are theyCollected for any other purpose than stated (maintenance ONLY), nor are theyMandatory without regard to whatever (or even whether) maintenance services are actually rendered. 




> Stop spewing such stupid, fatuous garbage.


Even if it was stupid, fatuous garbage he was spewing (it wasn't) the stupid fatuous garbage you spew here (even to the point of hijacking a thread about property taxes in ND and thoroughly polluting it into a thread that is now all about LVT) is tolerated here. You're nothing special or exceptional in the "stupid, fatuous garbage-spewing" regard.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Compared to most other taxes on the books, anyway.  The statistical relationship is very clear: low property tax states are mostly basket cases, high property tax states are better in almost every way.  There are good economic reasons for that.


Shifting taxes away from income to land discourages land speculation. Land speculation was the root to the Credit Crunch Crash. Those states with higher taxes on land suffered less.

Eliminating taxes on land encourages land speculoators. Land prices rise. House prices rise.  Not what you want.

----------


## MozoVote

> So not paying a property tax is no differnt to paying any other monies due then.  So why is it singled out?


Levies can be laid on other goods, but real estate is the most likely to have a large amount of equity that can cover the debt and attorney's fees. And it's easy to do a search of the Register of Deeds and find all the property owned by the debtor. There are other subtle reasons. A lien on real property renders it ineligible for refinancing ... IE, no lender will touch it until the lien is paid, because the property won't qualify for title insurance. It becomes a very motivating issue when the owner wants to sell or refi.

----------


## redbluepill

> The premise of the video is wrong because it assumes that if only people had a chance, they would not be poor. That somehow, if we could only get them out from under this evil monopolist, they would cease to be poor.  That is just plain false.  *While some people might be less likely to be poor, others would be MORE likely to be poor.*


Please explain.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So long as Roy believes in property taxes he believes we are forever serfs to the state.


What about the other taxes which penalize our productive efforts like Income Tax?

----------


## redbluepill

As productive people lose wealth in this depression idleness gets rewarded.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> If the elderly widow owes money and measures are taken to retrieve what is owed, then why is this stealing?


Your use of the term "owes money" is begging the question, as it implies that what she owes is a morally legitimate debt, _normatively speaking_. 

Here, let's flesh your scenario out a bit:

If the elderly widow owes money [to a Mafia don who says she owes him for her son's debt, and will kill him if she doesn't pay], and measures are taken to retrieve what is owed, then why is this stealing?  

OR...

If the elderly widow owes money [to an institution that assumes ownership-via-rents-charged for something her husband worked all their lives to pay for, and will seize this property from her if she doesn't pay], and measures are taken to retrieve what is owed, then why is this stealing?  

All loaded with begged questions, of course, and your responses will attempt to answer these with even more begged questions (based on your tenets, your governing assumptions) -- until we're back to the actual debate.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Levies can be laid on other goods, but real estate is the most likely to have a large amount of equity that can cover the debt and attorney's fees. And it's easy to do a search of the Register of Deeds and find all the property owned by the debtor.


So the debtor has assets which can be sold to pay the debt. That is quite normal.  If the widow has a car outside, that can be taken and sold. 




> There are other subtle reasons. A lien on real property renders it ineligible for refinancing ... IE, no lender will touch it until the lien is paid, because the property won't qualify for title insurance. It becomes a very motivating issue when the owner wants to sell or refi.


But the house owner can sell and downsize and with the remainder pay off the debt, as per normal.  I do not see any problems.

----------


## redbluepill

> If I lived in North Dakota, I could imagine voting no on the referendum. The state government would find some other way to fund itself, and my fear would be a boost in the income tax to compensate.
> 
> Income taxes are almost always progressive. At least property taxes are ad-valorem and you can decide how much property you want to own and how much tax you will tolerate.


Agreed, income tax is worse than just about any other tax. You dont make people pay more for working harder.

----------


## EcoWarrier

<Snip babble about Mafia.>




> If the elderly widow owes money [to an institution that assumes ownership-via-rents-charged for something her husband worked all their lives to pay for, and will seize this property from her if she doesn't pay], and measures are taken to retrieve what is owed, then why is this stealing?  
> 
> All loaded with begged questions, of course, and your responses will attempt to answer these with even more begged questions (based on your tenets, your governing assumptions) -- until we're back to the actual debate.


There is no issue. She owes money,she has to pay. How does she pay? By selling assets. Simple. This is how it is right now. This is nothing new. It has been done for centuries.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Agreed, income tax is worse than just about any other tax. You dont make people pay more for working harder.


A young couple struggling to bring up a family. The harder they work, the more that is taken from them in Income Tax.  That is progressive? Wow!  That sounds very regressive.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> So the debtor has assets which can be sold to pay the debt. That is quite normal.  If the widow has a car outside, that can be taken and sold. But the house owner can sell and downsize and with the remainder pay off the debt, as per normal.  I do not see any problems.


Yes, the sociopathic reasoning goes: Wealth - the putative fruits of one's already taxed labor that is converted into another form in many cases.  Labor-cum-wealth that can always be liquidated, converted back into monetary form, so that it can be RE-TAXED in perpetuity, and perpetually eroded to nothing. 

Perfectly normal, he sees no problem with that.  Just refer to the person whose past labors (now converted into wealth) are being perpetual and forever eroded (under color of "receiving valuable services", no less) a "debtor". Do that and your conscience will be insulated, and you'll be able to look at yourself in the morning.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I'd support a one-time only land tax, anything beyond that is the government having the ability to take all of your land based on a whim.


The government take your land for no apparent reason? How?

----------


## redbluepill

> A young couple struggling to bring up a family. The harder they work, the more that is taken from them in Income Tax.  That is progressive? Wow!  That sounds very regressive.


Think he meant progressive as in it progressively increases but i could be wrong.

----------


## Kluge

> <Snip babble about Mafia.>
> 
> 
> 
> There is no issue. She owes money,she has to pay. How does she pay? By selling assets. Simple. This is how it is right now. This is nothing new. It has been done for centuries.



Speaking of babble...you do realize that the city can arbitrarily raise property taxes based on nothing more than bull$#@!? I'm trying to sell a house that's "valued" and taxed by the city for their bull$#@! value of $111,500--I'm selling for far less than that and can't get an offer.

Now if I was a widow who wasn't trying to sell the house, how in the $#@! would I prove that the house is worth less? I couldn't, and I'd have to pay their higher rates...which will go higher and higher.

They raise the taxes on homes in a depressed housing market. Does that seem reasonable?

What assets should a widower sell? Her refrigerator? The copper plumbing? The washer and dryer? Her chair or bed? What planet are you living on where these widows have a Van Gogh hanging over the mantle in a $100,000 house?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Yes, the sociopathic reasoning goes: Wealth - the putative fruits of one's already taxed labor


If Income Tax is not levied you keep all the fruits of your labour. 




> Perfectly normal, he sees no problem with that.  Just refer to the person whose past labors (now converted into wealth) are being perpetual and forever eroded (under color of "receiving valuable services", no less) a "debtor". Do that and your conscience will be insulated, and you'll be able to look at yourself in the morning.


If your labors are not taxed you have more wealth. You keep that. A land value tax reclaims the wealth accumulated in the land. Wealth that was socially created by the community not the landowner.  What you earn you keep. What others create collectively is reclaimed - land taxes on the land value do that wonderfully. Land taxes do not take what you worked for.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What assets should a widower sell? Her refrigerator? The copper plumbing? The washer and dryer? Her chair or bed? What planet are you living on where these widows have a Van Gogh hanging over the mantle in a $100,000 house?


You are making a case for people deliberately going into debt and not paying, and then the law should back them up in not paying the debt.  A recipe for legal stealing.  I'll have some of that. Where is that $4m mortgage?

Property taxes include the building, which distorts. Have it all on land values. The higher the land value tax the less levied on our labors (income tax).

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Think he meant progressive as in it progressively increases but i could be wrong.


It is supposed to mean that the more you earn the more you pay. Richer people will pay more than the poor.  The video proved that is not the case.

So called progressive taxes, based on income, do "exactly the opposite" to what they say they do.  Look at the wealth distribution in the USA, Canada, UK, etc, - that tells you a lot.

Income tax was a temporary tax put in place to fund the Napoleonic wars. The British Tory Party kept them and pushed taxation off land onto the people's production.  It is no coincidence that the richest people in the western world are landowners.  They pay no tax on their "unearned income". 

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services they receive and we are all treated as equals.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Now if I was a widow who wasn't trying to sell the house, how in the $#@! would I prove that the house is worth less? I couldn't, and I'd have to pay their higher rates...which will go higher and higher.


They don't have an answer for that because those are details they don't give a $#@! about one way or the other.  The taxing authority and everyone dependent thereon, can insulate themselves entirely from the bad economies they are so often responsible for creating, and the widow and everyone else affected -- to the point even where their survival is threatened -- can go $#@! themselves.   Her option is to either pay the higher tax based on the overvaluation of her property, or have a fire sale that recovers its real value in the moment, with the taxing and assessing authority not giving a rat's ass one way or another.  Good riddance to old rubbish, make the property available for "more productive hands" (as Roy puts it).  And LVT is the master sweeper of old, unproductive human rubbish - the "What have you done for me lately?" Janet Jackson of taxing regimes.

----------


## Kluge

> You are making a case for people deliberately going into debt and not paying, and then the law should back them up in not paying the debt.  A recipe for legal stealing.  I'll have some of that. Where is that $4m mortgage?
> 
> Property taxes include the building, which distorts. Have it all on land values. The higher the land value tax the less levied on your labors (income tax).


No, I'm not. There's nothing deliberate that the widower does that makes the city raise her property taxes.

And WTF are you talking about with a $4m mortgage? The widower has paid her home off, there is no mortgage.

----------


## Kluge

> They don't have an answer for that because those are details they don't give a $#@! about one way or the other.  The taxing authority and everyone dependent thereon, can insulate themselves entirely from the bad economies they are so often responsible for creating, and the widow and everyone else affected -- to the point even where their survival is threatened -- can go $#@! themselves.   Her option is to either pay the higher tax based on the overvaluation of her property, or have a fire sale that recovers its real value in the moment, with the taxing and assessing authority not giving a rat's ass one way or another.  Good riddance to old rubbish, make the property available for "more productive hands" (as Roy puts it).  And LVT is the master sweeper of old, unproductive human rubbish - the "What have you done for me lately?" Janet Jackson of taxing regimes.


Yes, I've noticed that they conveniently avoid real-world issues and things that actually happened. The neighborhood where this home is located has at least 5 households, some widows, who have to pay these higher taxes and nothing about their homes changed at all. The city just did a sweeping "upvalue" of all the homes so they could collect more taxes.

These are all modest homes, with modest values--these people are on fixed incomes (that do not go up, for the most part), they do not have fancy cars to sell (some don't have cars) or any other significant assets.

But yeah, F 'em, the home that they worked their whole lives for and paid for should be snatched by the city because they're rubbish and don't fit in with their sociopathic scheme. Wonder if they'd wish that on their own grandparents?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Wonder if they'd wish that on their own grandparents?


As committed believers, of course they would - their grandparents would be the first to be thrown under the bus "for the greater good".  Let all that socialized Land Rent Recovery catch them in its safety net and cradle them to the grave.

----------


## Tod

> It is fact, and the video is correct.
> 
> Evidence for this claim?  Of course not.
> 
> Then you either haven't read, don't understand, or refuse to understand them.
> 
> To the extent that government spending on services and infrastructure is not just wasted or stolen by corruption, it is taken by landowners.  It is self-evident and indisputable that recovering what they take to *pay* for what they take is just.
> 
> You probably wouldn't; but if you are depriving someone else of opportunity, why wouldn't you expect to compensate them for what you are taking?
> ...


I thought for a moment about responding to each of your "refutations" but since they are all so full of holes, I'm not even going to bother; it isn't worth my time.  It is easy to see why with 1,374 posts you have a red mark for your rep.  It is apparent that you either are delusional or just like to stir the pot.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter!

----------


## redbluepill

> I thought for a moment about responding to each of your "refutations" but since they are all so full of holes, I'm not even going to bother; it isn't worth my time.  It is easy to see why with 1,374 posts you have a red mark for your rep.  It is apparent that you either are delusional or just like to stir the pot.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter!


And you bothered to post why?

----------


## Tod

> Please explain.


Simple.  There are certainly people who, through their labor, will strive to better their condition.  A landlord will charge what the market will bear, and that will undo the benefit of those persons' labor, keeping them poor.

However, many who are poor, are poor not because of external forces draining away their labor.  Instead, they are poor because they make unwise decisions with the little wealth that they do have or they have limited earning potential (not the sharpest pencils in the drawer).  However, if they own their own property free and clear and mere ownership doesn't have a price, (maybe they inherited their parents' house?) then that greatly reduces their living expenses.  If we toss a tax on top of their expenses, they become more poor.  If they rent, they become more poor.

Far better that a person who wants property of their own be able to own and retain it and be independent than be beholden to some landlord.

If they own their property, and pay no taxes on the ownership, then when they use it as they see fit, including by being a landlord themselves, they are less burdened and freer to make a living as they choose, whether that is through what they do (labor), what they know (profession), or through what they have.

Many have called landlords parasites, but who are they to place more value on labor than on knowledge or ownership?  Who are they to say that holding land idle is bad?  It isn't bad at all; it is part of good stewardship of the land; it allows nature to  exist unmolested.

----------


## Tod

> And you bothered to post why?


That is exactly what I thought when I read Roy L's post and now yours.

----------


## Tod

> Agreed, income tax is worse than just about any other tax. You dont make people pay more for working harder.


If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do.  It is called accountability.  I work hard driving a truck around all day, you bet I should pay for my wear and tear on the roads.  And that is just one example.

----------


## Vampire

> When did property taxes ever _steal_ an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street??  _When?_



    An inability to pay property taxes has resulted in the confiscation and sale of one's assets.  This is not hard to find, as state and county websites have the information there about what steps they take when an individual is unable to pay their property taxes.  Some of the methods are such things called tax liens and tax deeds.  Some states do not engage in selling tax deed certificate's, but will freeze assets and confiscate an individuals property, to later auction it off anyway.  

 - - - - -A seizure and sale is an action we may take if all other attempts to collect your tax debt have failed.  A tax warrant must be filed before we seize and sell your real and personal property.

How to avoid seizure - The best way to avoid seizure of your property is to pay your debt as soon as possible. If you have difficulty paying, make an immediate and continuing effort to voluntarily work with us on a mutually agreeable solution to your problem.

How the process works

    your assets are seized
    if prior to the sale we reach a mutually agreeable solution, we will return your property
    we will notify you of the intended sale date
    your property will be sold at public aution for at least fair market value
    we send you an accounting of the sale
    if the proceeds exceed your debt and the department's expenses, we will return the remainder to you ----  This is from NY state.



  So yes, an inability to pay property taxes to the state can result in the confiscation of the property you own.

----------


## SantanJ

> Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.



Regardless of your opinions on the property tax, calling them morons makes YOU seem unintelligent and intolerant.

There is nothing moronic over choosing a knocn tax over and unknown one.

If you think that the government would simply do with less money coming in, then YOU are the moron.

The people of North Dakota simply said that they would prefer to keep things the way they are..where they KNOWN what they are going to be taxed on, and were teh vast majority of people are easily able to manage that tax, over whatever NEW source of income the government might try to come up with which, in all probablility, might end up costing homeowners MORE money .

There is nothing moronic about that.

And seriously..learn to debate without resorting to childish name calling, because it only hurts you. And really, it shows YOU to be the moron for thinking that no one could EVER have a differing opinion than you without being wrong. I hate to break it to you, but everything you believe is not inherently correct.

----------


## osan

> Yes.  States with high property tax rates -  NH, NJ, TX, WI, OR, etc. -- did not experience the bubble on the scale that low property tax states like CA, NV, FL and AZ did.


I don't know if you are an outright liar or just ignorant.  I can speak for NY/NJ because I am a native and most of my family and friends are there.  NJ got $#@!ing HAMMERED.  In 1987 I bought a salt box in Monmouth Battlefield state park, somewhat over priced at 170K.  It sold just prior to the bubble for 660K!  It is now worth about 1/3 of that, the buyer having eaten a huge loss.  In the wealthy town of Freehold the McMansions are for sale literally by the hundreds to this very day.  Some of them have been vacant 3+ years.  Their real estate markets crashed most spectacularly - my mother's house had appraised upward of $700K and is now around 250 or less.

The popular areas of NY such as Westchester saw prices go up almost as steeply as NJ and came crashing right back down.  The boonies did not see the same crash because their markets never went up much and it had NOTHING to do with property taxes but rather the fact that there are no jobs there.  I can get a beutiful farm in NY state with good acreage and a huge house for $200K and I will see hell freeze solid to the core before I will find work.

Your assertion is unvarnished baloney.  You are trying to establish a causal connection between tax rates and housing bubbles.  One would think that if you were going to attempt to convince people of this nonsense that you would at least have given it a reasonably convincing try instead of this... I don't even know what to call it, though "pathetic" is perhaps the best adjective I could attach to "effort".  Ultra-fail.

As for Prop 13, I was a CA resident when that was passed and it has NOTHING to do with CA's fiscal troubles.  That states woeful condition stems entirely from the rapacious spending on "social" programs.  If the CA state government pulled back its operations to those justifiable functions, that state's looming fiscal death would vanish into thin air.

As for your other idiotic assertion that the "authorities" will not take away your property if you fail to pay your real estate taxes, that is yet another steaming pile.  But don't take my word for it.  Go to your local tax office and ask them what the procedure is and they will tell you.  I absolutely guarantee that the ultimate disposition will be confiscation.  Have you never heard of a tax lien?  Have you never heard of a tax lien sale?  Thousands of homes are confiscated on tax liens every year all over the USA.  Tax liens can be very profitable for those with the stomach to buy them and then boot the occupants.  This is done EVERY DAY of EVERY YEAR.  I doubt that a single day has passed in the past 40 years where someone has not been evicted from their home by a sheriff for not having paid their taxes.

I should not be feeding this massive troll but I got my hay in today and decided to indulge myself a bit.  Let's hear it for the hay!  WOOT.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do.  It is called accountability.  I work hard driving a truck around all day, you bet I should pay for my wear and tear on the roads.  And that is just one example.


Poor analogy aside, you forget that the service and institution you are talking about is a monopoly - right? Sure, you should pay more the more you use a service, and any good business does so (sans electronic things like the internet that are ridiculously cheap for mass usage), but you have no way to determine what that price should be or how much, and if you want to use their particular service or not because they hold a monopoly on its provision. It's unjust from the outset, and no amount of pretending that the situation is one of ideal circumstance changes the fundamental nature of the situation.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Regardless of your opinions on the property tax, calling them morons makes YOU seem unintelligent and intolerant.
> 
> There is nothing moronic over choosing a knocn tax over and unknown one.
> 
> If you think that the government would simply do with less money coming in, then YOU are the moron.
> 
> The people of North Dakota simply said that they would prefer to keep things the way they are..where they KNOWN what they are going to be taxed on, and were teh vast majority of people are easily able to manage that tax, over whatever NEW source of income the government might try to come up with which, in all probablility, might end up costing homeowners MORE money .
> 
> There is nothing moronic about that.
> ...


The people.....can you please show me what this 'people' looks like and introduce me to him or her? If the people said murder or robbery was preferable and therefore shall be legal, does that make it any more moral, ethical, or authoritative? I think not. Besides, 'people' can't vote. Only individuals vote.

----------


## Tod

> Poor analogy aside, you forget that the service and institution you are talking about is a monopoly - right? Sure, you should pay more the more you use a service, and any good business does so (sans electronic things like the internet that are ridiculously cheap for mass usage), but you have no way to determine what that price should be or how much, and if you want to use their particular service or not because they hold a monopoly on its provision. It's unjust from the outset, and no amount of pretending that the situation is one of ideal circumstance changes the fundamental nature of the situation.


Why would I need to determine what the price of usage should be?  I merely look at a price and decide if the service is worth the price to me and me alone.  If it isn't worth it, I don't use the service or use it less.  That holds true whether the service is provided by a monopoly or not.  If the service is not a monopoly, there is more likely to be a better price, but that is beside the point.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why would I need to determine what the price of usage should be?  I merely look at a price and decide if the service is worth the price to me and me alone.  If it isn't worth it, I don't use the service or use it less.  That holds true whether the service is provided by a monopoly or not.  If the service is not a monopoly, there is more likely to be a better price, but that is beside the point.


 Tod, he's just saying that with an income tax, or with any taxation, it's nothing like paying for a service.  The "service provider," our friend the State, is holding a gun to your head, to my head, to everyone's heads, telling us all exactly:

What services you WILL be provided
How much you WILL pay for them
That you will NOT try to go elsewhere for them nor avoid using these "services"
That NO ONE will compete with them on THEIR turf (which they have arbitrarily decided is the entire continent, from sea to sea)
That you WILL sit down
That you WILL shut up, and
That you WILL like it!

Or die.  That's the deal.

It's a deal we don't really like.  We don't really approve of it.

----------


## Tod

> Tod, he's just saying that with an income tax, or with any taxation, it's nothing like paying for a service.  The "service provider," our friend the State, is holding a gun to your head, to my head, to everyone's heads, telling us all exactly:
> 
> What services you WILL be provided
> How much you WILL pay for them
> That you will NOT try to go elsewhere for them nor avoid using these "services"
> That NO ONE will compete with them on THEIR turf (which they have arbitrarily decided is the entire continent, from sea to sea)
> That you WILL sit down
> That you WILL shut up, and
> That you WILL like it!
> ...


Ah, if that is the point being made, I completely missed it.  I thought this was about the most neutral form of taxation, not whether taxation was good or bad.  In that case, I agree, it is most certainly best to make services optional and competitive if at all possible.

Thanks, Helmuth

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Ah, if that is the point being made, I completely missed it.


 That was the original point, but I feel like that's not what Austrian Econ Disciple was really talking about.  I could be wrong.

I hope that New Hampshire keeps cutting their state budget heroically (make it 20% this time, guys!) and the time can come when the schools are spun off and they can get rid of their property tax.  Or maybe North Dakota can try again.  Or somewhere else.  Sooner or later, we should be able to get this through somewhere.

----------


## Roy L

> If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do.  It is called accountability.


Nope.  You are already paying landowners full market value for every benefit you get from government services and infrastructure.  That is very much the point.  Why do you want to pay for all those benefits *twice*, so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing nothing?



> I work hard driving a truck around all day, you bet I should pay for my wear and tear on the roads.  And that is just one example.


You already pay landowners for your wear and tear on the roads.  Why do you want to pay for it *twice*, so that landowners can pocket one of your payments in return for nothing?

I find it remarkable that stupid, lying anti-LVT sacks of $#!+ shriek to high heaven about paying even one cent to government for the benefit of the services and infrastructure it provides, and then turn around and shriek even louder that everyone god damn well has to pay landowners full market value for access to the same government-provided services and infrastructure, even though it is government, not landowners, that is providing them.

Can you explain that to me?  Of course you can't.  It's self-evidently evil and insane.

----------


## Roy L

> An inability to pay property taxes has resulted in the confiscation and sale of one's assets.


OK, so you admit that the "home stolen and put out into the street" claim is a total lie.



> This is not hard to find, as state and county websites have the information there about what steps they take when an individual is unable to pay their property taxes.


As I knew would be the case, you cannot provide even a single documented example for your claim.



> Some of the methods are such things called tax liens and tax deeds.  Some states do not engage in selling tax deed certificate's, but will freeze assets and confiscate an individuals property, to later auction it off anyway.  
>  - - - - -A seizure and sale is an action we may take if all other attempts to collect your tax debt have failed.  A tax warrant must be filed before we seize and sell your real and personal property.
> 
> How to avoid seizure - The best way to avoid seizure of your property is to pay your debt as soon as possible. If you have difficulty paying, make an immediate and continuing effort to voluntarily work with us on a mutually agreeable solution to your problem.
> 
> How the process works
> 
>     your assets are seized
>     if prior to the sale we reach a mutually agreeable solution, we will return your property
> ...


OK, so you again admit that the "elderly widow's home stolen and her put out into the street" claim is a total lie, and has never actually happened.  Good.

----------


## Roy L

> I thought for a moment about responding to each of your "refutations" but since they are all so full of holes, I'm not even going to bother; it isn't worth my time.  It is easy to see why with 1,374 posts you have a red mark for your rep.  It is apparent that you either are delusional or just like to stir the pot.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter!


I have comprehensively and conclusively refuted you, you know it, and you have no answers.  Simple.

----------


## Roy L

> Keith, what do you think about NH putting a constitutional Amendment like this forward?  Possible at some point in the future?


They are far too honest, intelligent, freedom-loving and justice-loving to do anything so stupid, dishonest and evil.  That is why NH has the highest or nearly the highest property tax rates in the country (depending on how you calculate them), and the smallest state government.  You just have to refuse to know all such facts.

----------


## Roy L

> I don't know if you are an outright liar or just ignorant.


Whereas I suffer no such doubts regarding you.



> I can speak for NY/NJ because I am a native and most of my family and friends are there.


Sorry, that doesn't make you an expert, and it sure as hell doesn't make you honest.



> NJ got $#@!ing HAMMERED.


Where are the statistics to support this claim?  It did not appear in the list of five worst-hit states.



> In 1987 I bought a salt box in Monmouth Battlefield state park, somewhat over priced at 170K.  It sold just prior to the bubble for 660K!  It is now worth about 1/3 of that, the buyer having eaten a huge loss.


I do not believe you.  Post the data, with source.



> In the wealthy town of Freehold the McMansions are for sale literally by the hundreds to this very day.  Some of them have been vacant 3+ years.  Their real estate markets crashed most spectacularly - my mother's house had appraised upward of $700K and is now around 250 or less.


The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."



> Your assertion is unvarnished baloney.


It is a fact of economics.



> You are trying to establish a causal connection between tax rates and housing bubbles.  One would think that if you were going to attempt to convince people of this nonsense that you would at least have given it a reasonably convincing try instead of this... I don't even know what to call it, though "pathetic" is perhaps the best adjective I could attach to "effort".  Ultra-fail.


<yawn>  It is clearly implied by the Net Present Value Equation.



> As for Prop 13, I was a CA resident when that was passed and it has NOTHING to do with CA's fiscal troubles.


Such claims are self-evidently idiotic.  Everyone in CA who has any knowledge of state or local budgeting (i.e., doesn't include you) knows that Prop 13 is the straitjacket that prevents any resolution of the crisis, as it requires the state to give large, growing, and unsustainable welfare subsidies to landowners.



> That states woeful condition stems entirely from the rapacious spending on "social" programs.


Garbage.  CA's social programs are in line with those of other liberal states of similar income level.



> If the CA state government pulled back its operations to those justifiable functions, that state's looming fiscal death would vanish into thin air.


It can't: the immense welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners required by Prop 13 -- a far bigger cost than "social" programs -- creates too many refractory social and economic problems.



> As for your other idiotic assertion that the "authorities" will not take away your property if you fail to pay your real estate taxes, that is yet another steaming pile.


Stop lying about what I have plainly written.



> But don't take my word for it.  Go to your local tax office and ask them what the procedure is and they will tell you.


Find one that says it will steal grannie's house and put her out into the street, or admit you are lying.



> I absolutely guarantee that the ultimate disposition will be confiscation.  Have you never heard of a tax lien?  Have you never heard of a tax lien sale?  Thousands of homes are confiscated on tax liens every year all over the USA.  Tax liens can be very profitable for those with the stomach to buy them and then boot the occupants.  This is done EVERY DAY of EVERY YEAR.  I doubt that a single day has passed in the past 40 years where someone has not been evicted from their home by a sheriff for not having paid their taxes.


Find ONE DOCUMENTED CASE where an elderly widow's home was STOLEN (not "confiscated" or repossessed), and she was put out into the street.  ONE DOCUMENTED CASE.

----------


## Roy L

> Speaking of babble...you do realize that the city can arbitrarily raise property taxes based on nothing more than bull$#@!?


Lie.



> I'm trying to sell a house that's "valued" and taxed by the city for their bull$#@! value of $111,500--I'm selling for far less than that and can't get an offer.


Many jurisdictions stint on assessments, meaning they are usually far out of date.  That just means it is over-valued now, but was even more undervalued during the bubble.



> Now if I was a widow who wasn't trying to sell the house, how in the $#@! would I prove that the house is worth less? I couldn't, and I'd have to pay their higher rates...which will go higher and higher.


Property tax rates have been declining for nearly 100 years.



> They raise the taxes on homes in a depressed housing market. Does that seem reasonable?


They were probably equally slow to raise them during the bubble.  It's not reasonable, but at least it's consistent.



> What assets should a widower sell? Her refrigerator? The copper plumbing? The washer and dryer? Her chair or bed? What planet are you living on where these widows have a Van Gogh hanging over the mantle in a $100,000 house?


Sell the house, pay the back taxes, and buy (or rent) in a neighborhood better suited to her needs and means.  Calling such a transaction "stealing her home and putting her out in the street" is just a stupid lie.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Prop 13 is the straitjacket that prevents any resolution of the crisis, as it requires the state to give large, growing, and unsustainable welfare subsidies to landowners.
> 
> ...the immense welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners...


Get used to seeing that - where something "not taken" equates to something "given" away - subsidized.  For that to make any sense whatsoever, you have to first contort your brian into a de facto state landownership mindset, and swallow lots of Roy's Koolaid, with the presumption that land rents "rightfully" belong to the state (aka the collectivized/socialized "people").   Thus, your mere exclusive existence on a piece of land represents a deprivation of liberty to others which, if uncompensated to "others", represents theft on the part of the landholder, or "giveaway" or "landowner subsidy" on the part of the "true" owners of the land (the Borg Community Collective, from whence all value springs forth).   




> Find ONE DOCUMENTED CASE where an elderly widow's home was STOLEN (not "confiscated" or repossessed)...


I was going to warn you about this one, osan.  You're at play in the imagined landmine fields of a fool's mind.  Much of slippery Roy's Roy-centric rationale is framed from his own peculiar mindset, with arguments that are based conveniently on his own preferred definitions of words, narrowed and confined to only those that suit his purposes. If no LVT-friendly definition is available, Roy will substitute his own LVT-centric interpretations.  In all of this Roy stands as the lone arbiter. 

Thus, Roy doesn't see a repossessing or confiscation due to non-payment of a property tax as stealing, or theft. As a result, you won't be able to produce a single "documented case" (by virtue of his word game) of what ROY ALONE views as theft.  That is not based on the fact that property taxes are legislated and codified as "legal", and that's where Roy's nasty, intellectually dishonest double standard kicks in. This is because anyone who opposes LVT, or is "_a lying apologist for landowner privilege_" (even though they ownership is codified as a right), any landowners who acts within the law, but does not want to pay LVT (read=give back what Roy feels "rightfully" belongs to "the community"), that person is automatically viewed by Roy, not just as a thief, but a MURDERER OF MILLIONS EVERY YEAR!

Again, all you have to do for everything to make perfect sense is contort your mind to match with whatever Roy thinks or believes. Then the World According To Roy is as right as rain, and nothing short of "indisputable facts of Roy's objective reality".

----------


## redbluepill

> However, many who are poor, are poor not because of external forces draining away their labor. Instead, they are poor because they make unwise decisions with the little wealth that they do have or they have limited earning potential (not the sharpest pencils in the drawer). However, if they own their own property free and clear and mere ownership doesn't have a price, (maybe they inherited their parents' house?) then that greatly reduces their living expenses. If we toss a tax on top of their expenses, they become more poor. If they rent, they become more poor.


People who live in 3rd world countries are not dumb, yet the conditions are much worse. The video explains why. Flawed government policies coupled with land monopolization has led to these conditions. Laziness has very little to do with it and is more a symptom rather than a cause of poverty.
"There is a cause for this poverty; and, if you trace it down, you will find its root in a primary injustice. Look over the world today — poverty everywhere. The cause must be a common one. You cannot attribute it to the tariff, or to the form of government, or to this thing or to that in which nations differ; because, as deep poverty is common to them all the cause that produces it must be a common cause. What is that common cause? There is one sufficient cause that is common to all nations; and that is the appropriation as the property of some of that natural element on which and from which all must live. ..." ~ Henry George, The Crime of Poverty
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/...7s_causes.html

And Georgists want to eliminate all taxes save for the LVT, so your argument that such a policy would lead to more poverty is bunk. The LVT is the only 'tax' that encourages productivity. The current system encourages speculation. Land is held idle until prices as high enough to sell. The landlord profits without lifting a finger. With the LVT and landlord will actually do something productive with the land so he can make an honest profits. There will be a demand for workers. As competition for workers increases, wages will naturally increase as well. The LVT is a great complement to a truly free market.




> Far better that a person who wants property of their own be able to own and retain it and be independent than be beholden to some landlord.


Remove land taxes and that is exactly what you'd have. That was demonstrated clear as day in the video. You haven't refuted anything the video stated.




> Many have called landlords parasites, but who are they to place more value on labor than on knowledge or ownership? Who are they to say that holding land idle is bad? It isn't bad at all; it is part of good stewardship of the land; it allows nature to exist unmolested.


Actually, if you are concerned about the state of nature the LVT is the way to go. LVT discourages urban sprawl. So those old rundown areas you see in the cities will be restored. Virgin land will be more likely left untouched.

----------


## redbluepill

> If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do.  It is called accountability.  I work hard driving a truck around all day, you bet I should pay for my wear and tear on the roads.  And that is just one example.


Roads ought to be paid for through user fees (tolls in this case). What if I walk to work?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> They don't have an answer for that because those are details they don't give a $#@! about one way or the other.


Assessing the value of land is easy. It is done all the time.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> No, I'm not. There's nothing deliberate that the widower does that makes the city raise her property taxes.


Prices rise all the time.  How do people cope now?  If I live in a big house and retire and my income is now far less and I have a large house to pay for, then I consider moving to a house that I can afford.  That is how it works now and always will. Why should we insulate anyone who can't pay their way and wipe out a debt they have run up?  That is what you are wanting. 

Current property taxes do not take into account your ability to pay. With LVT, if you can't pay then you move, like what happens now. But with LVT you can move to an internal tax haven by relocating to a lower LVT rated district or town/area. With Income tax it stays the same level of extraction wherever you move. LVT can be deferred until sale of land or death. There are exemptions as well. Winston Churchill described your points as the Old Widow Bogey. The Old Widow Bogey has been debunked continually over the past 100 years.  I find it amusing when it is wheeled out to justify free-loading.




> And WTF are you talking about with a $4m mortgage? The widower has paid her home off, there is no mortgage.


You are wanted the state to ignore people who get into debt and do not pay.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> In 1987 I bought a salt box in Monmouth Battlefield state park, somewhat over priced at 170K.  It sold just prior to the bubble for 660K!  It is now worth about 1/3 of that, the buyer having eaten a huge loss.  
> ...
> ...
> Your assertion is unvarnished baloney.  You are trying to establish a causal connection between tax rates and housing bubbles.


LVT, as the Single tax, a tax on only the values of land, no income tax, etc, will eliminate the bubbles. It will prevent boom & busts giving stability.  Why we have these bubbles is because of speculators.  Get them away, and LVT frightens them off, then no wild fluctuation in land hence house prices. Surplus money is then put into enterprise activities, not into land and its resources, which is commonwealth. 

The Dot Com bubble was benign and only those who went into it got burnt. When it burst it never affected the wider economy.  When a land bubble burts the whole world goes down like dominoes.

"Inelastic" land is very different to anything you can ever buy.  It reacts differently to the markets. Land is fixed to that location.

In what sense were we richer three or four years ago, when the exact same housing stock sold for about twice as much? In what sense are we poorer now? Land is special because, as Realtors like to remind us, they are not making any more of it. This means that you can get rich owning land without doing anything productive with it. You can lay on he beach, lounge around. The natural increase in population will do the trick.

----------


## EcoWarrier

The forbidden knowledge in economics is the land market. There is nothing magical about this. Data about the western European economy, tells us that trends repeat every 18 years without fail. Looking at the land market you can see how the health of the economy is progressing. From this information the turning points in the business cycle can be pinpointed.

The boom-bust cycle is programmed into the politics. It used to be a monarchical system, aristocracies economy now it is semi-democratic.  The underlying factors are still the same. The best gains are out of LAND, not the stock market, not out of anything else. Over the business cycle the highest capital gains are out of LAND. That is the secret. 

The way the market is structured at the present time we definitely get a boom after 15years into the cycle and then a bust because debt is created to over exploit that market and the economy has to dip. It has happened every 18 years for the past 200 to 300 years.

Socialized LAND and Privatized WAGES.

The socialisation of LAND is recovering for the community the value we collectively create. Changing the taxes by abolishing taxes on earnings and the profits from the investments from our savings. Privatise the wealth that we create. Let people keep what they produce. Collect from the public sector that shared revenue that is chrysalises in the land market as land values, we use that to pay for public services.  That's resocialising what used to be the public revenue and privatising people's wages. 

Political Problem

It is a political problem. They found that when the British Liberal government  introduced a land value based tax 100 years ago the House of Lords simply rejected any attempt at reform.

That culture of making money out of nothing, just by occupying a little bit of land, has seeded through into the democratic system.  There hasn't been the political or moral strength of our statesmen for 100 years to change that corrupt method of distributing income.

*All Become Richer When Taxes Are Raised From Land Values*

In the USA they would be collectively better off by $100s billions per year to share out amongst the population if they made the tax shift from taxing wages and raising revenue from land values.  That becomes an incentive. Everyone becomes richer.  Wages would be higher. It takes moral courage by the stewards of our system of government. The people would listen and once informed they would want to make the change.

Taxing Land Values Give Sustainable Economics

If we want a sustainable and stable system of economics and want to be able to compete with the Far East on an equal footing over the next business cycle, the only option is to shift taxes off wages and onto the "values" of land.  What that would mean? It would mean is that the factory gate products of western Europe would become more affordable in global markets.  Without this tax shift, our goods will continually to be undercut by cheap labour produced goods in the Far East. 

This future is not sustainable. This what the G20 economies have driven Europe and North America into. A situation of crisis were we will be able to compete is to change the cost structure. The only we can do that is to implement this tax shift.

Governments have been abysmal in looking after the interests of the advanced countries.  They have exposed Europe and North America to a Far Eastern economy that is going to gobble up most of us.  We may be in the doldrums for the next 20 years, because our governments have tried to inflate us out of this depression by the very mechanism that brought us into it in the first place. Debt was the way to maintain living standards, not by producing goods that are of any value but by borrowing and spending secured on land.

That is exactly what governments are still doing, piling debt on debt. They have socialised the private debt of land speculators, putting the burden onto future tax payers. What does that mean to the rest of the business cycle? It means the European and North American economies are not fit for purpose. The G20 economies have failed abysmally to take care of their nations.

Doldrums Will Continue

The economy will be in the doldrums for about 10 years, as the Japanese economy in the 1990s and European and North American in the 1930s.  Some will make money by latching onto the forbidden knowledge that predicts the trends, but for the rest of us there will be a decline in living standards and lot of unemployment.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> "There is a cause for this poverty; and, if you trace it down, you will find its root in...the appropriation as the property of some of that natural element on which and from which all must live. ..." ~ Henry George


Interestingly enough, what is Henry George's solution to what he sees as the root cause of all poverty?  The appropriation as the property of [the state ALL] of that natural element on which and from which all must live.  

This won't be anything like Marx' seeing the problem of evil, labor-exploiting capital in the hands of the few, with the solution being the entire appropriation of all capital into the hands of the benevolent state.  No way, no siree Bob.  Under a Georgist regime, Capital and Labor - two of the basic factors of production - requirements for productivity and wealth creation, would remain in private hands where they rightly belong.  No, just give the state ultimate ownership and control of Land, the one remaining factor of production. Just transfer that one basic requirement for life itself, and not just productivity or wealth creation, to the state.  Nothing need change, as all will be well once nobody is a landowner, as everyone is a perpetual renter.  

From there, of course, land scarcity, and therefore its value, can be artificially determined in large part, by whatever percentage of total land the state determines may be allowed for private use (assuming Roy's not in charge, he wouldn't stand for that).  Whatever lands are indeed restricted and withheld from private use of any kind might as well not exist (like 95% of Hong Kong - raw, undeveloped, unavailable-for-leasing-or-use land).  Throw zoning laws into the mix, and the artificial scarcity of land can further increase according to its limited usage (i.e., 100% of commercially or industrially zoned land might as well not exist or be counted along with residential land, as it's not part of that market's available supply).

Once all that's in place, we can really "roll up our sleeves and do more good for the community and humanity" by following the Greens' recommendations, as we appropriate to the state and capture economic rents on virtually anything and everything nature "provides".   And then, oh what a loverly world it will be.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> However, many who are poor, are poor not because of external forces draining away their labor. Instead, they are poor because they make unwise decisions with the little wealth that they do have or they have limited earning potential (not the sharpest pencils in the drawer). However, if they own their own property free and clear and mere ownership doesn't have a price, (maybe they inherited their parents' house?) then that greatly reduces their living expenses. If we toss a tax on top of their expenses, they become more poor. If they rent, they become more poor.


With the Single Tax, only LVT, they will not be poor if they rent. They keep all of their income. 




> If they own their property, and pay no taxes on the ownership,


LVT does not tax ownership. LVT taxes the value of the land annually. If the value drops so does the tax. LVT reclaims community created value.

LVT does not burden anyone. They freer to make a living as they choose and not have their labor (wages) taken from them.



> Many have called landlords parasites, but who are they to place more value on labor than on knowledge or ownership? Who are they to say that holding land idle is bad? It isn't bad at all; it is part of good stewardship of the land; it allows nature to exist unmolested.


You are confused. Understadn this...Martin Wolf Chief economist of the Financial Times...


The essential point is quite simple: the value of resources is created by the economic activity of other factors of production. The owners of these resources can become hugely wealthy and are often untaxed on that increase in wealth: the Duke of Westminster is the richest Englishman simply because he owns a large amount of land in a valuable part of London. So why should he have command over the labour of so many other people? 

*That wealth is, in the strictest sense, unearned*. If that rise in wealth were taxed away, other taxes - those on labour, capital and entrepreneurship - could fall. This would be both efficient (because taxes on rent do not create distortions, as Ricardo showed) and also just, because the wealth was unearned. Now, surprisingly, the UK allows foreign landowners to enjoy the increase in value created by the British economy, entirely tax-free. This is utterly crazy.

Let me add four other points.
First, throughout history, the main source of wealth was land-ownership. The parasitic landowner became wealthy on the efforts of others - peasants, tenants and even developers. Sometimes the parasite was also a farmer or developer, but that does not change the fact that these are two distinct economic roles. *The parasite built fine castles and palaces and often sponsored music and culture. But he was still a parasite.* The beauty of capitalism is that many of the wealthiest are no longer parasites. This is good. But many of the wealthy still are parasites. Moreover, now everybody wants to get rich by being a mini-landowner. That is a huge diversion of effort.
Second, the financial system's ills are the result of unchecked credit-creation. Yes. But unchecked credit-creation would be impossible without collateral. Land is always the principal form of collateral (buildings are a depreciating asset). That is why financial bubbles that do not create credit booms (like the dotcom bubble) are economically benign, *while property bubbles are potentially catastrophic*. When the value of collateral collapses, the financial system implodes.
Third, there is really nothing new about this understanding of the role of resource rents. They were central to the classical system, from which modern economics, in its various forms, derives. Ricardo's analysis of rent remains intellectually impeccable.
Finally, as Herman Daly has noted, today economically valuable resources are much more than just land (and what lies below it). They include all the services of the biosphere - those that are appropriated, those that are appropriable and those that are non-appropriable. If we do not think seriously and intelligently about how to price resources, we are likely to go seriously adrift, perhaps even into disaster. Here land is the least of our problems - it is appropriable and, by and large, appropriated. So, at least, the price mechanism works, even though the distribution of the gain is grossly unjust. But, in other cases, no appropriation is possible, or at least it is not easy. Nobody can appropriate the atmosphere. It is nigh on impossible to appropriate the oceans. How do you own species diversity? These are serious challenges.
So, I conclude where I started: resources matter. It was a great mistake to exclude them from the canonical neo-classical model. It is also a great mistake not to tax their owners to the hilt.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Interestingly enough, what is Henry George's solution to what he sees as the root cause of all poverty?  The appropriation as the property of [the state ALL] of that natural element on which and from which all must live.


I have concluded you are some sort of obsessed nut. You have been repeatedly told, with backup from eminent economists, etc, that what you view is wrong, yet you keep reciting the same mantra. 

*George DID NOT advocate state appropriation of all land title at all*. He said if people want to hold title to land then fine. The state leaves them alone.  He based his theories on Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Mills, etc.  That was to reclaim community created wealth that soaks into the land to pay for community services, leaving the wealth of private individuals alone. The mechanism is Land Valuation Taxation.  An annual charge on the value of land. It is auto regulating to the economy.

*It is just a tax shift - nothing else. Everything else stays the same.*

----------


## Kluge

> Prices rise all the time.  How do people cope now?  If I live in a big house and retire and my income is now far less and I have a large house to pay for, then I consider moving to a house that I can afford.  That is how it works now and always will. Why should we insulate anyone who can't pay their way and wipe out a debt they have run up?  That is what you are wanting. 
> 
> Current property taxes do not take into account your ability to pay. With LVT, if you can't pay then you move, like what happens now. But with LVT you can move to an internal tax haven by relocating to a lower LVT rated district or town/area. With Income tax it stays the same level of extraction wherever you move. LVT can be deferred until sale of land or death. There are exemptions as well. Winston Churchill described your points as the Old Widow Bogey. The Old Widow Bogey has been debunked continually over the past 100 years.  I find it amusing when it is wheeled out to justify free-loading.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wanted the state to ignore people who get into debt and do not pay.


You can't answer the question. Yes, prices do rise all the time, if there's a price to be risen. How do people cope? Some people grow their own food, produce their own electricity, rely on the charity of others. 

Find another source to suck people dry. This one is unethical, and if you don't know that, your ethics are quite off.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You can't answer the question. Yes, prices do rise all the time, if there's a price to be risen. How do people cope? Some people grow their own food, produce their own electricity, rely on the charity of others. 
> 
> Find another source to suck people dry. This one is unethical, and if you don't know that, your ethics are quite off.


You are very confused. I fully addressed your points. You want the state to support free-loaders.  People who can't manage have to make alternative arrangements. That is the case now, and has always been the case. 

We are being sucked dry right now. The more we work the more they take from our labors in Income Tax and Sales Tax, etc, etc.  A form of slavery.

Let us go back to this Widow. She is in a 5 bedroom large house. Her family have moved of and her husband passed away.  The House now is far too large for her requirements.  The house/land value is considerable.  Moving to a smaller suitable house and cashing in on the value under her feet to keep her comfortable in her latter years is the ideal solution. It also releases a house for a family to use. 

The likes of you is wanting us to ensure she stays in the over-large house and wipe out her debts when they come along. Amazing.

Under the Single Tax her LVT payments can be deferred until the sale of the house, a House suitable for her needs, or death.  The state takes the house to pay the debts and gives the remaining money to the relatives.  No problem. Perfect solution.

----------


## Kluge

> You are very confused. I fully addressed your points. You want the state to support free-loaders.  People who can't manage have to make alternative arrangements. That is the case now, and has always been the case. 
> 
> We are being sucked dry right now. The more we work the more they take from our labors in Income Tax and Sales Tax, etc, etc.  A form of slavery.
> 
> Let us go back to this Widow. She is in a 5 bedroom large house. Her family have moved of and her husband passed away.  The House now is far too large for her requirements.  The house/land value is considerable.  Moving to a smaller suitable house and cashing in on the value under her feet to keep her comfortable in her latter years is the ideal solution. It also releases a house for a family to use. 
> 
> The likes of you is wanting us to ensure she stays in the over-large house and wipe out her debts when they come along. Amazing.
> 
> Under the Single Tax her LVT payments can be deferred until the sale of the house, a House suitable for her needs, or death.  The state takes the house to pay the debts and gives the remaining money to the relatives.  No problem. Perfect solution.


Someone who's worked their whole life to buy a home is NOT a freeloader. The freeloader is the state who confiscates property after having done ZERO work to purchase it and has done ZERO work to maintain it. Who are you to determine when someone has a home that is "far too large for her requirements?" If she chooses to do something like that, that's different. But having a government who forces that "choice" on you directly or indirectly is bull$#@!.

The Paul's just bought a large home because they have lots of children and grandchildren. Should your ideal government force them to a smaller house and seize their assets because they arbitrarily decided that taxes on the big house are now $500,000/year? Ridiculous situation, eh? Not really when you look at what gov'ts do to force people out of their homes when they want to.

And here's the thing about Income/Sales tax--yes, both forms of slavery (as the property tax is), but both are forms of taxation that are, at the very least, more easily avoided without becoming homeless.

You, sir, are the one who is quite confused--and you are the one who's advocating for some sort of weird socialism. The old lady's lost her "usefulness" to society, so we need to "free up" her home so more "productive" people can use it, and you advocate government force to do so. She's not taking anything from you, she's just not contributing via that method to your socialist paradise.

And you call that a "perfect solution."

----------


## teacherone

As much as I hate Roy's arguments, I love his snark. Good snark like his is pretty rare.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Someone who's worked their whole life to buy a home is NOT a freeloader. The freeloader is the state who confiscates property after having done ZERO work to purchase it and has done ZERO work to maintain it.


You are wanting the state to annul debts.  If someone runs up debt then the normal procedures of reclaim apply, as they do now.  You have a problem with this. Someone who does not want to pay debts and have their debts wiped out is a free-loader.




> Who are you to determine when someone has a home that is "far too large for her requirements?" If she chooses to do something like that, that's different. But having a government who forces that "choice" on you directly or indirectly is bull$#@!.


No one is advocating the government to decide where people live. If they run up debts then they have to pay and the normal reclaim procedures apply.

You are wanting the state to subsidize someone who can't pay their debts when they have assets.  That is free-loading.




> And here's the thing about Income/Sales tax--yes, both forms of slavery (as the property tax is), but both are forms of taxation that are, at the very least, more easily avoided without becoming homeless.


You are very confused. If you do not pay your income tax your house can be sold to pay the debt.  That is how it is now. Yon have problem with that and think it only applies to property taxes.  Land value tax sets people free. Free from having the fruits of your labors stolen.




> The old lady's lost her "usefulness" to society, so we need to "free up" her home so more "productive" people can use it, and you advocate government force to do so. She's not taking anything from you, she's just not contributing via that method to your socialist paradise.


You are very confused. An old person's income has diminished. The state can come in and help and defer any payments until sale of house or death.  The old widow can stay there as long as she can pay her debts. If she has problems the state can defer LVT so she has a content end of life.  But deffering payment for an old lady who stuggles with debt in a 5 bdedrrom house is not fair.  She must be in a house suitable for her needs.  Sounds fair and civilized.

----------


## specsaregood

For those that missed it.  This amendment to abolish the property tax LOST 76% to 24%.  In otherwords, it got slaughtered.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> As much as I hate Roy's arguments, I love his snark. Good snark like his is pretty rare.


 Please, thread it out with him for 100 pages.  You will realize he is just a parrot, repeating the same lines over and over.  It's not cleverness he has, it's total blinding hate, unlimited time, and lack of the mechanism that would make most of us crazed with boredom after typing the same snarky sentence 500 times in a month (500 times in a few days, probably, if you were to monitor his accounts on all the various message boards across the internet).  You will rarely find a post of his with more than 20% new original content.

Realizing that, you should realize it's pointless to try to change his mind.  He's not even thinking about his own posts -- he can't, the repetitiveness and banality would drive a human nuts -- and so he's _certainly_ not thinking about _yours_!  It's best to just consider him a simple Turing machine responding to certain key trigger words with certain preset responses.  Then you can have some fun with it, that is, if you enjoy automated caustic rantings.  It's like talking to Siri, except she hates you, and humanity in general, and has a lot of weird ideas.  Well, mostly one weird idea.  She thinks all the stuff she hates about the world can be solved by this Idea X -- let's call it "everyone should eat more fish."  That would make the world a beautiful place.  So settle in (if you like) and she/he/it will tell you all about the Annual Holocaust of the Fishless and George the ex-prison camp inmate who really was even worse off when he got out of the gulag because, after all, he still didn't have any fish.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> For those that missed it.  This amendment to abolish the property tax LOST 76% to 24%.  In otherwords, it got slaughtered.


We know. Very sensible indeed. They now need to aim towards full LVT

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Please, thread it out with him for 100 pages.  You will realize he is just a parrot, repeating the same lines over and over.


That is because people do not take in what he writes. He demolishes arguments with ease.

----------


## Tod

> Roads ought to be paid for through user fees (tolls in this case). What if I walk to work?


If you walk to work on a sidewalk or road that isn't your own, it makes sense that you would pay.  Since the requirements for a walking path are less than a road for heavy vehicles, it makes sense that the payment would be less.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If you walk to work on a sidewalk or road that isn't your own, it makes sense that you would pay.  Since the requirements for a walking path are less than a road for heavy vehicles, it makes sense that the payment would be less.


This notion of paying for services as you receive them, I can think of few that are sensible. Infrastructure greatly assists in creating economic growth. All benefit from this growth, even those who do not use the infrastructure.

Some infrastructure is unviable on ticket prices, urban mass-transit comes to mind.  Few urban rail networks pay for themselves via ticket sales.  They create economic growth for sure so are economically viable.  They need public finances to plug the gap.  LVT does that wonderfully, as occurred in Hong Kong when they built an underground subway.  LVT also funds the maintenance of the network. Those who know accountancy and not economics look at the ticket prices and running cost and say they are not viable, not understanding where and how they are profitable. 

So many benefit from the economic growth mass-transit rail gives, and also in the quality of life in using these rail networks in getting about.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I have concluded you are some sort of obsessed nut. You have been repeatedly told, with backup from eminent economists, etc, that what you view is wrong, yet you keep reciting the same mantra.


lol, did someone have a big bowl of Obsessed Nut for breakfast, chock full of irony?  Perhaps more ad nauseam repetition of your own views, your own mantras, will finally make them correct. 




> *George DID NOT advocate state appropriation of all land title at all*.


Oh, well of course the titles would remain as they are. Just the meaning of each title would be appropriated; a minor trivial detail, really. Everything else would remain the same.  

Are you really that naive, or do you just think other people are? I referred to ownership, not "title", of which there are different meanings (as was already pointed out to you, with no response).  The full force and effect of LVT is no different than if all landownership titles were converted, unilaterally and en masse, into rental agreements (with or without any agreement).  

Did you honestly buy into your own empty semantics shell game? The power to tax is the power to destroy, and in the case of LVT, as with any ad valorem tax, the very concept of ownership with regard to titles in land is _completely destroyed_. Argue why that should be the case all you want, but at least be honest enough, even if to yourself only, to call it what it is.  Everyone can hold "title", _on condition_ that everyone with a title is a renter only.  It's little different, in principle, than what happened to "titles" in money. Everyone retained "title" to each "dollar", silly us, as none of those "titles" were appropriated.  Only the meaning of the word dollar, and what each "dollar bill" was actually title to, was appropriated.  But any fool can see that we still have titles called "dollars", so what's all the fuss about?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If you walk to work on a sidewalk or road that isn't your own, it makes sense that you would pay.  Since the requirements for a walking path are less than a road for heavy vehicles, it makes sense that the payment would be less.


No, not necessarily. Sidewalks and parking lots for instance are free-to-use. It is a product which is given freely by the owners of the business to entice customers to their establishments. If you had to pay to use their walkways, most people would refrain from patronizing their establishment. The business bears the burden of cost for this convenience for the customer, or not. Merely walking by their establishment is a form of advertisement. 

In many cases this applies to urban roads as well. Only rural, or large thoroughfares would be pay for use in most cases. In many other instances it is bundled with other goods and services such as say....Disney World. I still affirm that most property owners who own commercialized property would happily let anyone ambulate to and fro their pathways and roads because it is an economic benefit for them to do so.

----------


## Tod

> This notion of paying for services as you receive them, I can think of few that are sensible. Infrastructure greatly assists in creating economic growth. All benefit from this growth, even those who do not use the infrastructure.
> 
> Some infrastructure is unviable on ticket prices, urban mass-transit comes to mind.  Few urban rail networks pay for themselves via ticket sales.  They create economic growth for sure so are economically viable.  They need public finances to plug the gap.  LVT does that wonderfully, as occurred in Hong Kong when they built an underground subway.  LVT also funds the maintenance of the network. Those who know accountancy and not economics look at the ticket prices and running cost and say they are not viable, not understanding where and how they are profitable. 
> 
> So many benefit from the economic growth mass-transit rail gives, and also in the quality of life in using these rail networks in getting about.


Just because YOU consider something a benefit doesn't mean that a landowner views it that way.  Benefits are subjective.  A lot of people consider resale value when they purchase a property and they hope that their land becomes more valuable by virtue of its location.  I, on the other hand, don't wish my land to be more valuable in the usual sense and vote against things that might increase its value on the market.  A landowner should not have to pay for things that YOU consider to be a benefit but that they don't.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Oh, well of course the titles would remain as they are. Just the meaning of each title would be appropriated; a minor trivial detail, really. Everything else would remain the same.


*Nothing* would be changed in title. You must stop making things up.

LVT does not care if the land occupier has title or "owns" the land or not. 

You only have land title. The state owns the land. You have difficulty with this. LVT reclaims community socially created wealth for social purposes from the tile holder.  Socially created wealth for social purposes leaving the individual free.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Just because YOU consider something a benefit doesn't mean that a landowner views it that way.  Benefits are subjective.  A lot of people consider resale value when they purchase a property and they hope that their land becomes more valuable by virtue of its location.  I, on the other hand, don't wish my land to be more valuable in the usual sense and vote against things that might increase its value on the market.  A landowner should not have to pay for things that YOU consider to be a benefit but that they don't.


The landowner may not be informed or bright enough to know he is benefiting. Everyone benefits from a well educated population, but many people without children at school contribute to the education system.

Mass-transit rail clearly benefits large cities and its people, whether uninformed individuals think so or not.  Overnight, take away the underground rail networks from NYC, London, Paris, etc, and these cities will fall apart. They will rapidly contract and economically decline.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You only have land title. The state owns the land.


Your normative, from your ideological framework, your political paradigm. Even if those two sentences were positive statements of fact (the way you have it mentally diced), it would not change the fact that these are the very political questions (the normatives) at issue in our little discussion. 

The extreme difficulty you seem to be having is in understanding the difference between normative (should/ought) and positive (is) statements.

----------


## redbluepill

> If you walk to work on a sidewalk or road that isn't your own, it makes sense that you would pay.  Since the requirements for a walking path are less than a road for heavy vehicles, it makes sense that the payment would be less.


So the government would have me pay less in income tax if I walk to work? Don't think so. And what if I work from out of the house (lots of people do that these days through computers.)

I find it hilarious you defend income tax. Directly taking from the fruits of an individual's labor. Even the National Sales Tax got a nod from Ron Paul. And its the Georgists, the people who want to eliminate every tax but one, who get the vitriol.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The extreme difficulty you seem to be having is in understanding the difference between normative (should/ought) and positive (is) statements.


FACT: You only have land title. The state owns the land.

You must stop making things up. Roy L call you a re liar. I see why.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The landowner may not be informed or bright enough to know he is benefiting.


Ah, the ignorant rabble card most often played by those with a leftist bent, as the unenlightened mouth-breathers of privilege or ignorance are too stupid to know how truly wonderful everything is under a given scheme/scam. 




> Everyone benefits from a well educated population, but many people without children at school contribute to the education system.


A total non-sequitur, of course, since we're talking about revenue mechanisms for the state, of which LVT is only one, and any of which could support public education (and even that, buying into the collectivist idea that "the education system" automatically means "public education"). 




> Mass-transit rail clearly benefits large cities and its people, whether uninformed individuals think so or not.  Overnight, take away the underground rail networks from NYC, London, Paris, etc, and these cities will fall apart. They will rapidly contract and economically decline.


Another _completely irrelevant_ non sequitur, for the same reasons, right down to the assumption that "mass-transit" automatically means _publicly funded_ mass transit.  What makes this one ironic is that you constantly hold up Hong Kong as a model, but you didn't list that in your cities that would "fall apart".  Could that be because you knew that the "public" mass transit system there (which I use regularly, and really is quite something) is 100% _privately owned and operated_? Likewise, what about Singapore and Tokyo, with their highly successful privately owned mass transit systems?   

Oopsie?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> George DID NOT advocate state appropriation of all land title at all.


 Actually, he did.  That's exactly what he wanted.  It's in his book.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> FACT: You only have land title. The state owns the land.


Keep telling yourself that, and keep regurgitating it as a mantra, ad nauseam.




> You must stop making things up. Roy L call you a re liar. I see why.


...said the other poster with a single red reputation bar below his name.

----------


## redbluepill

> This won't be anything like Marx' seeing the problem of evil, labor-exploiting capital in the hands of the few, with the solution being the entire appropriation of all capital into the hands of the benevolent state. No way, no siree Bob.


Lol, Marx considered George's Single Tax idea as capitalism last ditch ploy. And George referred to Marx as the king of all muddleheads. Just because they both recognized a flaw in the economic system doesn't mean they had similar solutions.





> Under a Georgist regime, Capital and Labor - two of the basic factors of production - requirements for productivity and wealth creation, would remain in private hands where they rightly belong.


There are in fact three basic factors of production. You forgot land.





> No, just give the state ultimate ownership and control of Land, the one remaining factor of production. Just transfer that one basic requirement for life itself, and not just productivity or wealth creation, to the state. Nothing need change, as all will be well once nobody is a landowner, as everyone is a perpetual renter.


You still have trouble understanding the difference between common property and collective property dont you?

_Denying Common Rights
Many anti-Marxists deny common rights because they have bought into the Marxist confusion between common rights and collective rights. In doing so, they sometimes inadvertently embrace collective rights -- the very thing to which they are opposed. For example, many anti-Marxists propose upholding titles to land that had originated with the state and have no basis other than state issuance. Many even advocate that the state sell lands remaining under its jurisdiction. Unlimited property in land, which violates Locke's proviso and classical liberal principles generally, rests on the collectivist premise that the state has a right to assign land by selling it. This begs the question, "By what rationale can the state rightly sell what it does not rightly own?" In proposing that the state sell land, they turn the great body of classical liberal thought on land tenure against them while vainly asserting that they are the modern extension of classical liberalism.

The True Opposite of Collectivism
The true opposite of collectivism is not neoconservatism, but classical liberalism. The opposite of collective rights is not private rights purchased from the collective, but of common rights that precede the collective. The answer to attacking property as if it were privilege is not to defend privilege as if it were property, but to clearly distinguish between property and privilege. Most importantly, the answer to Marxist mythology is not to react with an anti-Marxist mythology, but to begin with principles of liberty and follow them wherever they might lead.

As Albert Jay Nock, founding editor of The Freeman and author of Our Enemy, The State, noted,

"The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it.... One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry. Free Speech and Plain Language, February 1935, p. 159"_
http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

----------


## Keith and stuff

> For those that missed it.  This amendment to abolish the property tax LOST 76% to 24%.  In otherwords, it got slaughtered.


I'm fine that 77% of voters opposed the measure but what did it need to pass?  Did it need a majority, 3/5s or 2/3s to pass?  If it needed 2/3s to pass and over 3/4s rejected it, that's a pretty resounding defeat.

----------


## Tod

> So the government would have me pay less in income tax if I walk to work? Don't think so. And what if I work from out of the house (lots of people do that these days through computers.)
> 
> I find it hilarious you defend income tax. Directly taking from the fruits of an individual's labor. Even the National Sales Tax got a nod from Ron Paul. And its the Georgists, the people who want to eliminate every tax but one, who get the vitriol.


Government basically provides services, whether that service is in the form of protection from foreign invaders, roads for travel, or a system of welfare should one need it. (no commentary on the efficiency or morality of those service, just a statement of their existence).  It only makes sense that the more service one uses, the more one should pay for the services.  If one uses none of the services, one should not pay for them.  LVT fails to address that whole issue of the relationship between use and payment.  It disconnects the two.  I dislike that and find it morally reprehensible that a person can lose their home because they did not pay for something they neither needed nor wanted.  To be forced to pay for something you neither need nor want smacks of organized crime.

----------


## Tod

> Keep telling yourself that (that the State owns the land), and keep regurgitating it as a mantra, ad nauseam.


Actually, so long as there is a tax on "ownership", there is truth to that statement, and that is what is so morally reprehensible about a tax on ownership.

----------


## Tod

> So the government would have me pay less in income tax if I walk to work? Don't think so. And what if I work from out of the house (lots of people do that these days through computers.)
> 
> I find it hilarious you defend income tax. Directly taking from the fruits of an individual's labor. Even the National Sales Tax got a nod from Ron Paul. And its the Georgists, the people who want to eliminate every tax but one, who get the vitriol.


Where did I specifically defend income tax?  I advocate the creation of a correlation between tax paid and service desired and accepted.

----------


## Roy L

> Where did I specifically defend income tax?  I advocate the creation of a correlation between tax paid and service desired and accepted.


And you permanently refuse to know the fact that we *already pay landowners* full market value for all those government services we desire and accept.  You just demand that we pay for them *twice*, so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing absolutely nothing.  Check.

----------


## redbluepill

> Where did I specifically defend income tax?  I advocate the creation of a correlation between tax paid and service desired and accepted.


You stated, "If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do." I was clearly speaking of the income tax when you made this statement. Roads can be paid for through tolls and LVT. No need to have an income tax for that.

----------


## redbluepill

> LVT fails to address that whole issue of the relationship between use and payment.  It disconnects the two.  I dislike that and find it morally reprehensible that a person can lose their home because they did not pay for something they neither needed nor wanted.  To be forced to pay for something you neither need nor want smacks of organized crime.


You pay LVT the government to defend your exclusive use of the land. Thats the service.

----------


## Roy L

> Just because YOU consider something a benefit doesn't mean that a landowner views it that way.  Benefits are subjective.


Their market value isn't.



> A lot of people consider resale value when they purchase a property and they hope that their land becomes more valuable by virtue of its location.  I, on the other hand, don't wish my land to be more valuable in the usual sense and vote against things that might increase its value on the market.


Hehe.  Sure you do.



> A landowner should not have to pay for things that YOU consider to be a benefit but that they don't.


I see.  So, if somebody doesn't like bread, they should be allowed to take it out of the supermarket and throw it away without paying for it?

Three possible explanations for such claims: stupidity, insanity, dishonesty.

I know where my money is.

----------


## Roy L

> Actually, so long as there is a tax on "ownership", there is truth to that statement, and that is what is so morally reprehensible about a tax on ownership.


LVT is not a tax on ownership, as land cannot rightly be owned.  It's a tax on forcibly removing others' liberty to access and use what nature, not the landowner, provided, and that they would otherwise be perfectly at liberty to access and use.

You just permanently refuse to know that fact.

----------


## redbluepill

Wake up people. Its classical liberals who have historically supported ground rent. 

http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates


Benefits of the LVT:

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload...f_land_tax.pdf
http://schalkenbach.org/henry-george/the-single-tax/
http://www.savingcommunities.org/iss...xes/landvalue/
http://freestateproject.org/about/es...lvtaxation.php
http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/0...and-value.html

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Lol, Marx considered George's Single Tax idea as capitalism last ditch ploy. And George referred to Marx as the king of all muddleheads. Just because they both recognized a flaw in the economic system doesn't mean they had similar solutions.


If I say that my solution is to bind your legs, but someone else's solution is to bind your hands and arms, by your logic I could say the solutions are not at all similar, as arms are very different from legs.  Anyone can see that hands and arms are far more useful than legs, so my solution is obviously superior, and not anything like the other, as you are still quite "FREE" to use your hands and arms with my solution. 




> Under a Georgist regime, Capital and Labor - *two of the* basic factors of production - requirements for productivity and wealth creation, would remain in private hands where they rightly belong.
> 			
> 		
> 
>  There are in fact three basic factors of production. You forgot land.


Read what you quoted again (emphasis in bold). The very next paragraph referred to the Georgist state appropriation (binding of the legs only) of 100% of the value of *the entire third factor of production*. 




> You still have trouble understanding the difference between common property and collective property dont you?


Not at all, but let's get into that hair-splitting exercise on the part of you and one Dan Sullivan, shall we?  




> One of the great tragedies of socialism has been the confounding of common rights (natural rights common to each individual) with collective rights (those that have been delegated to the community or its government). Common rights are inalienable, *individual rights* -- the very opposite of collective rights. Classical liberalism was based on the idea of common rights.


Where you and Dan Sullivan err is in wanting to have your socialist cake and justify eating it too by calling it classical liberalism cake.  Sullivan states that "Common rights are inalienable, individual rights -- the very opposite of collective rights." -- and yet he is trying to make the argument for collectivization of land based on individual deprivations and abrogation of individual rights (TO LAND). But those so-called "individual rights" are not individualized AT ALL. They are FOREVER collectivized under LVT. So what he is arguing is as absurd as it is self-contradictory.  

Here's where Dan Sullivan makes an unwitting argument against LVT by quoting Locke (whom I happen to agree with) as an authority, but trying to spin Locke's words and position in a light that is favorable to LVT:




> *The Lockean Proviso*
> 
> John Locke's chapter "On Property," from his Second Treatise on Government, *asserted that any person has a right to exclusive possession of land, "provided that there is enough, and as good, left to others."* This is but another way of saying that the common right to hold land is limited only by the equal rights of others. *As long as this proviso is met, the landholder has no reciprocal obligation to the community or its members, because his holding land has not prevented others from exercising their rights to do likewise.*


So far so good, that is what I have been arguing all along.  The solution to a violation of Locke's Proviso (that someone/anyone is denied opportunity to access to land of their own) is to unblock those who have artificially blocked that access; to open up that opportunity and restore that access as an inalienable _INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO EACH_, and not the exclusive privilege of the very few (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE).  

Geolibs fully accept this deprivation as a first principle.  Their solution is not to see a violation of Locke's Proviso and UNVIOLATE IT. Their solution is not to unblock that opportunity of access and restore the right of access to individuals FOR LANDS OF THEIR OWN as a matter of right. Their solution is to say, "Yes, you can continue your exclusive possession, and continue to violate Locke's Proviso, denying this Common right of individuals, *but only for a price*. That is where LVT proponents collectivize the rights of others and offer them up FOR RENT to the highest bidder. And that rent paid -- under color of recompense for the denial of Common Rights _of Individuals_ -- is not paid directly to ANY individual whose rights are denied. This is because their so-called equal "Common", equal, individual rights have been collectivized.  

Sullivan goes on to say: 

Locke also noted that economies relying on private possession of land are vastly more productive than nomadic economies, and that it is in the public interest to grant possession within the limits of his proviso.




> Locke further noted that his proviso referred to there being land as good as the unimproved value of the land already taken up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				    He that had as good left for his improvement, as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour: if he did, it is plain he desired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as good left, as that already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to. [Sec. 34]


Here Locke talks about lands actually held in common, but even there this entails possession, or exclusive use of lands worked.  So long as more land existed for a claim for others, there is NO DEPRIVATION involved, no cause for complaint, and no obligation on the part of the exclusive holders.  This is counter to the geolib claim that everyone has an equal claim to all lands, and that a deprivation is being suffered even when other neighboring lands are readily available. 




> Locke went on to state that, when populations were sparse and the economy was not fully monetized, there was no incentive for people to take up more land than they intended to use, and so there was little violation of the rights of others. However, with the growth of population, good land became scarce, and with the introduction of money, it became profitable for people to take up land they had no intention of using, so that others would pay them to let go of that land. It is at this point that Locke's proviso was violated, and systems of land tenure had to be established by social compact.


That's not really an accurate paraphrase, but let's stipulate for the sake of discussion that it is.  Once again, the obvious solution to scarcity and value increases due to speculation only is to prevent or undo all such speculation WITHOUT TREADING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHO ARE NOT SPECULATING, but who are only acting as a matter of right under Locke's Proviso.  One mechanism for this could be to charge LVT, or Ground Rents targeted TO SPECULATORS ONLY - _only to those acting as a matter of privilege_, and not right.  In other words, make it not worth it for most to speculate.  And if charging Ground Rent to speculators fails to bring the scarcity down, sterner "anti-trust" measures could be taken, right down to outright confiscation and public auctions for non-compliance.  




> Locke did not state what the particulars of social compacts should be, but it would be logical for him to advocate a compact that would be harmonious with his proviso that land should be accessible to others, and with his other proviso, that land should not be appropriated to be held out of use.


And I agree. *Those are the first principles*; NOT a revenue mechanism for the State, but rather land that is accessible to others to possess exclusively as a matter of right, and not appropriated or held out of use, or to the exclusion of others _for lands of their own_. As Sullivan correctly stated, "As long as [Locke's Proviso] is met, _the landholder has no reciprocal obligation to the community or its members_, because his holding land has not prevented others from exercising their rights to do likewise.

And that's the argument AGAINST LVT in a nutshell.  

LVT proponents, because of their primary focus on LVT as a revenue source for the State, rather than a protection of individual rights of exclusive land possession, _seek to make de facto Locke's Proviso Violators out of everyone_, when nothing could be further from the truth. The two major causes of the violation are the land speculators and the state (to the extent that lands are artificially withheld from private possession and usage).  LVT proponents seek to make a pact between the two biggest violators that includes everyone by default. Deal specifically with those violations, those violators, and there is no violation on anyone's part, and therefore "no reciprocal obligation to the community or its members" by any landholder.  

No, LVT proponents are in the business of making violations the rule and not the exception, even to the point of rewarding and encouraging violations by selling the rights to them to the highest bidder, as a kind of _Locke's Violation Indulgences_.  Meanwhile, the people are not free, as the very "rights" each could have held equally in common as individuals (NOT COLLECTIVE) is converted en masse to privilege status for everyone, even as the state becomes the BIGGEST perpetual encourager, facilitator, aider and abettor of wanton violations of Locke's Proviso.

----------


## Tod

> No, not necessarily. Sidewalks and parking lots for instance are free-to-use. It is a product which is given freely by the owners of the business to entice customers to their establishments. If you had to pay to use their walkways, most people would refrain from patronizing their establishment.


Oh, come on, you are being silly.  If the business had to pay to install the sidewalk, their customers ARE paying for it.  Repeat after me:  NOTHING IS FREE.




> The business bears the burden of cost for this convenience for the customer, or not.


You are under a misconception.  The business does NOT bear the cost.  They ALWAYS pass it on to the customer, normally in the form of higher cost of whatever service or product they sell.  It is called OVERHEAD.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm fine that 77% of voters opposed the measure but what did it need to pass?  Did it need a majority, 3/5s or 2/3s to pass?  If it needed 2/3s to pass and over 3/4s rejected it, that's a pretty resounding defeat.


 Keith, I gather you are going to be running for state office in New Hampshire.  Would you support a measure like this in New Hampshire, once you got the budget down to a miniscule enough level to make it feasible?

I do hope the no income tax amendment passes this year.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Oh, come on, you are being silly.  If the business had to pay to install the sidewalk, their customers ARE paying for it.  Repeat after me:  NOTHING IS FREE.
> 
> 
> 
> You are under a misconception.  The business does NOT bear the cost.  They ALWAYS pass it on to the customer, normally in the form of higher cost of whatever service or product they sell.  It is called OVERHEAD.


Price is a function of subjective valuations of individuals, not exclusively, mostly, or even much in part to do with production costs. *In fact, production costs have nothing to do with price*. Production costs do though have everything to do with a companies profitability or losses. Therefore, it is entirely factual that the customer does not bear such costs. 

I agree, nothing is _free_, but that does not mean _free_ to no parties. The costs are a function of the business, not to the consumer. Therefore, the consumer may receive such a free benefit, due to the benefit accrued to the business owner by his providing this service free of charge _to the consumer_. Have you never received free food in a grocery store? They do not do this out of the kindness of their hearts, but because it is a beneficial use of their capital. The businesses that give free ambulation of their pathways, roads, etc. receive far more back from their small upkeep and production costs in the form of having an actual business. 

I would like to see you try and run an establishment that has no way for customers to come to your property in a convenient manner. Furthermore, an establishment who charges customers to even come to his commercial establishment in the first place (that is, paying to use storefront pathways, parking lots, roadways, etc.), would find themselves with few customers. There would be many partnerships in commercial areas that provided free use of roads, paths, parking, etc. in a free-society.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Keith, I gather you are going to be running for state office in New Hampshire.  Would you support a measure like this in New Hampshire, once you got the budget down to a miniscule enough level to make it feasible?
> 
> I do hope the no income tax amendment passes this year.


Maybe at some point in the future.  NH has the least centralized tax system in the US.  Many of us are working to make it even more decentralized.  Some communities in NH don't have property taxes.  Some have very low property taxes.  Some have very high property taxes.  In most communities, most of what goes into the property tax rate is decided by the voters in that community.

There was a bill last year to allow all towns, cities and school districts to have a spending and/or tax cap if the voters living within the district vote to have the caps.  I supported that bill and was happy when it passed.  I support caps all around.  I support the Constitutional amendment to prevent new income taxes in NH that will go to the voters.  I support the Constitutional amendment to require 3/5s support of the legislature for any increase in any state fee or tax or new state fee or tax.  Unfortunately, it was a few votes shy in the NH House and will likely not go to the voters.

Now, if I misunderstood North Dakota Measure 2 and all it does it is state (not local) property taxes, I would support something like that everywhere.  I don't beleive in the idea of state property taxes and don't even think it should be an option.

----------


## Tod

> You stated, "If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do." I was clearly speaking of the income tax when you made this statement. Roads can be paid for through tolls and LVT. No need to have an income tax for that.


To me, it is irrelevant whether the source of the tax is income or a sales tax or a toll.  What matters is that there is a correlation between amount used and amount paid.  If I use no services, I should owe no tax.  LVT not only doesn't provide good correlation, it completely severs any correlation except coincidentally and that is why it is so evil.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Some communities in NH don't have property taxes.


 Really?  That is news to me.  Good news!   And I take it there is no state-level property tax.

I must admit, New Hampshire is sounding better all the time.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Actually, he did.  That's exactly what he wanted.  It's in his book.


Read it properly.  George realised that to have the state have title to all land would be problematic so reverted to Land Value Tax. Perfect solution.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Ah, the ignorant rabble card most often played by those with a leftist bent,


You are such a fool it is beyond belief. Or a paid person to infest forums. Since when has Geoism been leftist.  The leftist thought it was rightist.  You have repeatedly been told this.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You are such a fool it is beyond belief. Or a paid person to infest forums.


Ah, the "paid forum shill" card most often played by the paranoid, conspiracy theorists, and those with a leftist bent... 




> Since when has Geoism been leftist.


Who said anything about Geoism?  I was referring to "EcoWarrier" (sic)




> The leftist thought it was rightist.  You have repeatedly been told this.


Ah, the patronizing scolding parental tones taken by those with a leftist bent...

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Actually, so long as there is a tax on "ownership", there is truth to that statement, and that is what is so morally reprehensible about a tax on ownership.


Geoism does tax the ownership of land. It reclaims socially created wealth for social purposes.  You have been told this repeatedly.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Geoism does tax the ownership of land. It reclaims socially created wealth for social purposes.  You have been told this repeatedly.


There is no "socially created wealth" to reclaim, contrary to your delusion. There is only labor and capital equity to erode based on the fact of external influences beyond the landholder's control which affect the putative market value of the land, however that is determined.  This valuation determines the amount of real wealth (not land value) that is siphoned from the landholder in the name of a collective. 

See how that works, and why "socially created wealth" as a rationale for an ad valorem tax on land is such a delusion?  The wealth required to pay the tax doesn't necessarily come from the land, or its value.  

Also, do you think that there is something magical about saying something repeatedly, or saying that someone has "been told this repeatedly"?  I can assure you there is not. There is nothing special about you, your position, or your repeated tellings.  You have been told this once.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Read it properly.


 How about I just read it?  That's what he says.  Very clear.  You want to spin it.  Fine.  But that's your own ideas and desires and philosophy, not George's.  You can go on reading it "properly," and I will go on reading what it plainly says in plain English.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> LVT proponents, because of their primary focus on LVT as a revenue source for the State, rather than a protection of individual rights of exclusive land possession


LVT does not prevent you from holding land title. You can buy and sell title at will. You have repeatedly been told this.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> To me, it is irrelevant whether the source of the tax is income or a sales tax or a toll.  What matters is that there is a correlation between amount used and amount paid.  If I use no services, I should owe no tax.  LVT not only doesn't provide good correlation, it completely severs any correlation except coincidentally and that is why it is so evil.


You are very confused. In your mind every street should a barrier and a coin box for you to pay to walk down. No public libraries, pay to send your kids to school. Pay the fire dept when they are called out. If you have no money or not insured your House burns down, etc, etc.

You are in la-la land.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Ah, the "paid forum shill" card most often played by the paranoid, conspiracy theorists, and those with a leftist bent...


When defeated many brainwashed right-wing Americans revert to leftist accusations.  You are a clear nut or paid to infest forums. No one can be so blinkered and continually repeat lies as you do.  No one can so incapable of learning as you.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> When defeated many brainwashed right-wing Americans revert to leftist accusations.  You are a clear nut or paid to infest forums. No one can be so blinkered and continually repeat lies as you do.  No one can so incapable of learning as you.


More and more you're sounding like Roy with your constant repetition and simplistic and dogmatic pronouncements and denouncements.  

OK, so I'm a defeated, brainwashed, blinkered liar who is incapable of learning (does that make you the teacher?).  I'm also either a clear nut or someone who is paid to infest forums.  Does that mean you infested this forum for free?! Say it ain't so! And here along I thought you were raking in the big bucks like me. You just have to know where to apply.

----------


## Tod

> Price is a function of subjective valuations of individuals, not exclusively, mostly, or even much in part to do with production costs. *In fact, production costs have nothing to do with price*. Production costs do though have everything to do with a companies profitability or losses. Therefore, it is entirely factual that the customer does not bear such costs. 
> 
> I agree, nothing is _free_, but that does not mean _free_ to no parties. The costs are a function of the business, not to the consumer. Therefore, the consumer may receive such a free benefit, due to the benefit accrued to the business owner by his providing this service free of charge _to the consumer_. Have you never received free food in a grocery store? They do not do this out of the kindness of their hearts, but because it is a beneficial use of their capital. The businesses that give free ambulation of their pathways, roads, etc. receive far more back from their small upkeep and production costs in the form of having an actual business. 
> 
> I would like to see you try and run an establishment that has no way for customers to come to your property in a convenient manner. Furthermore, an establishment who charges customers to even come to his commercial establishment in the first place (that is, paying to use storefront pathways, parking lots, roadways, etc.), would find themselves with few customers. There would be many partnerships in commercial areas that provided free use of roads, paths, parking, etc. in a free-society.


As someone who has worked for decades in manufacturing and now own a service business, I can assure you that you are very wrong in saying that production costs have nothing to do with price.  Consider it this way:  No business would be able to stay in business if they couldn't charge enough to cover their production costs.

I used the word "normally", because most businesses I know embed something generic like the cost of a sidewalk or parking lot into the price of what they sell, but I do know several that do have a separate fee for parking.  It allows those customers who are especially cost conscious to decide whether to spend the extra money.  In many cases, this would be more bother than it is worth, but sometimes it works out to the best to have that sort of expense broken out as an option.

----------


## Tod

> You are very confused. In your mind every street should a barrier and a coin box for you to pay to walk down. No public libraries, pay to send your kids to school. Pay the fire dept when they are called out. If you have no money or not insured your House burns down, etc, etc.
> 
> You are in la-la land.



Oh, my.  Surely you can think of other options besides a barrier and a coin box on every street.  Try harder, and I'll bet if you apply yourself you'll be able to think of alternative solutions of attributing cost to usage.

I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion as the absurdity of it all is beginning to make me feel as though my username should have been Sisyphus.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> How about I just read it?  That's what he says.  Very clear.  You want to spin it.  Fine.  But that's your own ideas and desires and philosophy, not George's.  You can go on reading it "properly," and I will go on reading what it plainly says in plain English.


George believed that the factors of production - land, labor and capital - should be "privately possessed". That was clear.

Currently the state takes on the role of supporting the poor by taxing the rich, rather than supervising an economy in which everyone would have the opportunity to provide for their own needs. Ensuring Freedom.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Oh, my.  Surely you can think of other options besides a barrier and a coin box on every street.  Try harder,


I am sure the likes of you can.  What about the police and army?  Collections on doorsteps for to pay for them as well?  Call out charge for the police?  So only the rich can use them?  Coin boxes all over la-la land. Wherever you go, someone wants money from you.  A self-centered man eat man society where the few own most.




> I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion as the absurdity of it all is beginning to make me feel as though my username should have been Sisyphus.


In your view from la-la land all the world must look absurd.

----------


## redbluepill

> If I say that my solution is to bind your legs, but someone else's solution is to bind your hands and arms, by your logic I could say the solutions are not at all similar, as arms are very different from legs.  Anyone can see that hands and arms are far more useful than legs, so my solution is obviously superior, and not anything like the other, as you are still quite "FREE" to use your hands and arms with my solution.


The point is that you are the one who keeps bringing up Marxism in reference to Georgism when you know full well it is intellectually dishonest. 








> Where you and Dan Sullivan err is in wanting to have your socialist cake and justify eating it too by calling it classical liberalism cake.


What do the classical liberals say about property in land? Read what they actually said please. But I know you won't. 
http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates




> Sullivan states that "Common rights are inalienable, individual rights -- the very opposite of collective rights." -- and yet he is trying to make the argument for collectivization of land based on individual deprivations and abrogation of individual rights (TO LAND). But those so-called "individual rights" are not individualized AT ALL. They are FOREVER collectivized under LVT. So what he is arguing is as absurd as it is self-contradictory.


Where does he say "collectivize the land"? This is part of the reason why these threads on land and property get so long. You royal libertarians refuse to use correct terminology.







> Here's where Dan Sullivan makes an unwitting argument against LVT by quoting Locke (whom I happen to agree with) as an authority


So I assume you agree with Locke when he says "the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men"?










> The solution to a violation of Locke's Proviso (that someone/anyone is denied opportunity to access to land of their own) is to unblock those who have artificially blocked that access; to open up that opportunity and restore that access as an inalienable _INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO EACH_, and not the exclusive privilege of the very few (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE).








> Geolibs fully accept this deprivation as a first principle.  Their solution is not to see a violation of Locke's Proviso and UNVIOLATE IT. Their solution is not to unblock that opportunity of access and restore the right of access to individuals FOR LANDS OF THEIR OWN as a matter of right. Their solution is to say, "Yes, you can continue your exclusive possession, and continue to violate Locke's Proviso, denying this Common right of individuals, *but only for a price*. That is where LVT proponents collectivize the rights of others and offer them up FOR RENT to the highest bidder.


On the contrary, Georgists do seek to unviolate Locke's Proviso through the LVT. All that land that is locked up will be freed when landlords realize it is not economically sound to keep it idle. Land prices will drop. More individuals will be able to afford to possess a piece of land.





> And that rent paid -- under color of recompense for the denial of Common Rights _of Individuals_ -- is not paid directly to ANY individual whose rights are denied.


Yes, it can be. Its called the Citizen's Dividend.





> This is because their so-called equal "Common", equal, individual rights have been collectivized.


You are so far in left field its not even funny.

Check out these collectivist government lovers!

James Buchanan
"The *landowner* who withdraws land from productive use to a purely private use *should be required to pay higher, not lower, taxes.*"

Adam Smith
"Both ground rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own... *Ground rents seem, in this respect, a more proper subject of peculiar taxation.*.. Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly."

Francois Quesnay
Thus the form of assessment which is the most simple, the most regular, the most profitable to the state, and the least burdensome to the tax-payers, is that which is made proportionate to and laid directly on the source of continually regenerated wealth (land).

Milton Friedman
*Land should be taxed as much as possible and improvements as little as possible.*

Frank Chodorov
"It is obvious that if rent were socialized - that is, publicly collected and used for social purposes - the power of the State would decline, and eventually disappear. The governing body could not hide its inefficiency or corruption behind tax levies. *Rent would be the barometer of government's value to the citizenry,* and the readings would be quite visible. The producers would be buying social services just as they buy private services or goods. *The price would be rent.* Government would come into the market. […] The socialization of rent would destroy taxes. The State (as we know it) would disappear; and such government as we would have would be always subject to the economic instrument of rent."

Albert Jay Nock
"Why tax industry and enterprise at all—*why not just charge rent?* There would be no need to interfere with the private ownership of natural resources. Let a man own all of them he can get his hands on, and make as much out of them as he may, untaxed; but* let him pay the community their annual rental value*, determined simply by what other people would be willing to pay for the use of the same holdings. George could see justification for wages and interest, on the ground of natural right; and for private ownership of natural resources, on the ground of public policy; but he could see none for the private appropriation of economic rent. In his view It was sheer theft."

OMG! The libertarian movement was infiltrated by statists!








> Here Locke talks about lands actually held in common, but even there this entails possession, or exclusive use of lands worked.


Georgists do not argue against exclusive possession.




> So long as more land existed for a claim for others, there is NO DEPRIVATION involved, no cause for complaint, and no obligation on the part of the exclusive holders.  This is counter to the geolib claim that everyone has an equal claim to all lands, and that a deprivation is being suffered even when other neighboring lands are readily available.


So a wasteland is just as good for human use as fertile soil? When all the good land is privately owned with no reimbursement you get poverty. You see that in the history of the South. The most fertile soil was taken by the plantation owners. The rest got the scraps. They either had to work for the landlords or worked less productive land. 






> That's not really an accurate paraphrase, but let's stipulate for the sake of discussion that it is.  Once again, the obvious solution to scarcity and value increases due to speculation only is to prevent or undo all such speculation WITHOUT TREADING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHO ARE NOT SPECULATING, but who are only acting as a matter of right under Locke's Proviso. One mechanism for this could be to charge LVT, or Ground Rents targeted TO SPECULATORS ONLY - _only to those acting as a matter of privilege_, and not right.  In other words, make it not worth it for most to speculate.  And if charging Ground Rent to speculators fails to bring the scarcity down, sterner "anti-trust" measures could be taken, right down to outright confiscation and public auctions for non-compliance.


So let me get this straight, you are okay with an LVT as long as its only charged to speculators? If you really believe its their land, their rightful property, then whats wrong with speculation?







> And I agree. *Those are the first principles*; NOT a revenue mechanism for the State, but rather land that is accessible to others to possess exclusively as a matter of right, and not appropriated or held out of use, or to the exclusion of others _for lands of their own_.


You ignore the fact that Locke declared land the common property of all: "The earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men..."
and distinguishes this common property from private property: "...yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

He goes on to say that whatever you remove from nature/mix labor with becomes private property by extension. Those are the improvements Georgists talk about. So when an individual removes trees from nature to build a house that house is his/her private property through his work.

 Land by itself was never anyone's product of labor and it cannot be rightfully considered property.  Locke supports this argument when he states, "When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its private property at all."

Now I do disagree with Locke to an extent here. Land, whether cultivated or uncultivated, can never be considered private property. Only the products of labor can be private property. 

Thomas Paine was right on: "Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates




> As Sullivan correctly stated, "As long as [Locke's Proviso] is met, _the landholder has no reciprocal obligation to the community or its members_, because his holding land has not prevented others from exercising their rights to do likewise.
> 
> And that's the argument AGAINST LVT in a nutshell.


How convenient you left out this part:

"Now if the situation is that there is enough free land, and as good, left after you take and cultivate your land, than your land has no market value, for who would pay you for land that is not better than land that can be had for free? So, besides the fact that Locke's justification of privatizing land is far more limited than royal libertarians portray it to be, it is irrelevant to the question of land value tax, as it applies only to land that has no value."
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> As someone who has worked for decades in manufacturing and now own a service business, I can assure you that you are very wrong in saying that production costs have nothing to do with price.  Consider it this way:  No business would be able to stay in business if they couldn't charge enough to cover their production costs.
> 
> I used the word "normally", because most businesses I know embed something generic like the cost of a sidewalk or parking lot into the price of what they sell, but I do know several that do have a separate fee for parking.  It allows those customers who are especially cost conscious to decide whether to spend the extra money.  In many cases, this would be more bother than it is worth, but sometimes it works out to the best to have that sort of expense broken out as an option.


I'd give this a good read:

http://mises.org/daily/5333/SubjectiveValue-Theory

The relation of the costs of production to price as I said are only extent to determine ex-ante profitability or loss. Price however, is determined subjectively and purely by marginal utility and time preferences. So, no, production costs have little to nothing to do with prices. You seem to confuse profit and loss potentialities with price formation.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> More and more you're sounding like Roy with your constant repetition and simplistic and dogmatic pronouncements and denouncements.


Roy is capable of learning. You are not. If you are, then are you paid to infest these forums?

You forgot "pinkie Commie" and "red under the bed".  Keep em commin' they are fun.  It is highly predictable from the brainwashed right-wing. It is like they all read the same book on how worm out of being cornered.

----------


## redbluepill

> To me, it is irrelevant whether the source of the tax is income or a sales tax or a toll.  What matters is that there is a correlation between amount used and amount paid.


You just contradicted yourself. I just proved to you there is little correlation between income tax and payment for roads. One could be working from the house and rarely use roads. One could carpool. On the other side of the coin, a man could be living off an inheritance and therefore not pay an income tax while using taxpayer funded roads daily.




> LVT not only doesn't provide good correlation, it completely severs any correlation except coincidentally and that is why it is so evil.


You pay LVT for the government to recognize and protect your privilege to hold a piece of land exclusively. You pay for the police to keep trespassers away, you pay for the court system which is necessary for territory disputes, etc.

----------


## Vampire

> OK, so you admit that the "home stolen and put out into the street" claim is a total lie.
> 
> As I knew would be the case, you cannot provide even a single documented example for your claim.
> 
> OK, so you again admit that the "elderly widow's home stolen and her put out into the street" claim is a total lie, and has never actually happened.  Good.



  As for the elderly widow thrown out of her home, I can not comment on that situation of which I do not know.  Is it plausible?  Yes due to state/county policies for confiscation of one's property if they do not pay property taxes.  If you would step into the real world, go to the county/state office which deals with these things and request said information you would see for yourself (you can even do research).  There is plenty of documentation available to you in regards to the information you seek.  Tax lien certificates / tax deed sales do happen.  If an individual can not pay, the lien holder (depending on the state) can wind up with the property.  You can attend one of these auctions, or purchase tax liens/ deed certificates.

Here's a simple video that explains the tax deed auction process.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgCmNllMRw

Here's an auction - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9SLojkPLw

Another one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfZbyDouUA

Another sale from a 06' or so (current tax deed info is in blue down below from WA) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxwr2Qd6Tc8



  As to state services, to suggest that government should collect taxes would mean they are providing a valuable service better than the market can.  The track record of government providing services is horrid.  The waste and abuse of state monopolies wherein there is no competition is rampant.  Take a look at road construction.  Innovation in road construction has remained stagnant in many cases.  Instead of "rubberizing" a road (among other advancements), which will extend the life of a road tremendously, there were state DOT's that mixed in glass with the asphalt.  What happens when glass get's wet, or has a sheen of oil on it?  It becomes very slippery and can become a hazard.  A hazard it became, hence the requirement to chop up the road and repave it.  Then there are instances where the road department will wish for either the same budget as prior years, or more.  Therefore, roads that need repairs are left in horrible shape, while current jobs are extended, or done incorrectly requiring repaving and so on.  If this were a business, it would have been bankrupt after the first week of operation.  The state doesn't have to worry, as it can confiscate more money through taxation, or have the FedGov issue freshly printed stimulus funds, wherein all whom hold the currency are then robbed. 

 This of course doesn't stop at roads, it happens in sanitation as well as numerous other area's (DOD, HHS, and so on).  For what reason is there for government to provide sanitation, when the market is capable of handling these services, and has done so successfully?  So, if an individual chooses private sanitation, they are forced to pay for the state provided sanitation through taxes, as they simply can not opt out, as that is much to difficult for bureaucracy to handle as many are busy trying to find clever new ways to rob individuals.  Look at Amtrak, other GOC's, and even businesses that have been subsidized through fed and state politicians.  AIG, Goldman Sachs, Fannie & Freddie, Solyndra and many more have horrid track records.  Individuals may try and claim: The government can provide services cheaper than the market!  The price may be lower if one ignores the unseen costs associated with such services which mostly are above that of the market price after the seen and unseen costs are realized.

  Individuals create wealth, not communities.  So, what if the community decides  (as some individuals believe there should be no private property in regards to land) the den area and spare bedroom located in the house you live in is to be utilized to shelter a homeless person, or an individual whom chose not to work?  They decide the area you just spent $40,000 to improve will be where this individual will reside.  For if it were not for the community, you may not have had the $40,000 to spend to improve the household.    

   Suppose a land title holder Individual A invested 10 million dollars into the land and the business that occupies it.  The value of a large area of land increases in value due to Individual A's investments.  New businesses open, and things are booming.   The politicians through funds received through the LVT decide to subsidize Individual A's competitor, Individual B.  They also write regulations in favor of Individual B's business.   Artificial capital to the competitor eventually forces Individual A out of business.  The individual looses everything and is unable to pay the LVT.  It was that individual A's business and investments that had raised the value of other land throughout the area and also increased business activity, yet individual A is now broke due to the actions of those politicians and can only afford to live off the land.  Does the state in which collected the LVT reimburse Individual A for all the investments and subsequent improvement to that area?  Does the community reimburse that individual as they have benefited from Individual A's investments?  If it weren't for individual A, the rest of the community wouldn't have had those gains.  Oh well individual A, the property will be confiscated and auctioned off.  You can always move to another community.




King County Washington Tax sale information -  (http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations...reclosure.aspx)

Foreclosure Auction Notice
Date: 	December 2012 (Actual date to be determined.)
Location: 	To be determined.
Publication Date: 	To be determined.

    In 2012 the properties subject to foreclosure are those on which the 2009 full year tax is delinquent. In some cases, 2008 or earlier taxes may also be delinquent. The grace period is three years and the full year 2009 taxes will be three years past due on May 1, 2012. NOTE: It does not matter if the 2010, 2011 or 2012 taxes are paid. It is not when there are three years of taxes past due but when one year's tax is three years past due that foreclosure begins.
    We do not maintain a mailing list to notify people of each year's tax foreclosure. The great majority of people who ask for information never attend the auction or do any research once they find out what is required and what is involved. Further, people move without telling us and it is a waste of county resources when the list is returned. On or about June 10, 2012, a Foreclosure List is made available to the public for viewing. The Summons and Notice, which includes a list of the properties, will be published in the Seattle Times classified (legal) section sometime in late October after all our certified mail notifications are completed. A paper copy computer list may be purchased in the office on or about June 10, 2012 for $5.00; $8.00 if mailed.
    We do not sell "tax certificates or "deeds" of any nature. In some states you may purchase a certificate of some kind showing that you paid the delinquent taxes but we don't have any information on this procedure because there is no provision for it in Washington State law.
    If you obtain a list from us for research purposes, remember that you will need to come into our office or visit our web site periodically to delete those accounts that were paid since your list was printed. The web site list will normally be updated daily via the technology staff after normal working hours. Due to the volume of work this information will not be provided by telephone. Parcels may be redeemed from foreclosure at any time up to the day before the auction, thus we do not know what will be in the sale until the morning of the auction.
    There is no redemption period after the sale except in cases where the owner on the day of the sale was either a minor child or a person adjudicated to be legally incompetent. In those cases, there is a three year redemption period.
    As real estate taxes are in the first lien position, the tax foreclosure extinguishes all other encumbrances including but not limited to Deeds of Trust, mortgages, contracts, liens, judgments and any similar items. However, any Local Improvement Assessments (LIDs) remain and become the obligation of the buyer. Also, Internal Revenue liens remain.
    Some parcels may be sold out of order from how they appeared in the newspaper and in the lists mentioned in #2. An announcement will be made at the beginning of the auction advising which parcels will be auctioned out of order. The list mentioned in #2 shows parcels in numerical order by tax account number which, in turn, derives from the alphabetical order of the plat name or from the Section, Township and Range if the property is unplatted.
    ALL SALES ARE FINAL. PROPERTIES ARE SOLD ON A "WHERE IS" AND "AS IS" BASIS.

    All research must be done by the interested party. Normally this would include checking maps in the Assessor's Office and doing research through the public computer terminals in the Assessor's Office. An on-site inspection should also be made. Just because a property looks desirable on the map does not mean it is in actuality. The map does not show the topography such as ravines, hill, slopes, etc., nor does the map show what is on the property (dense growth, swamp, boulders, etc.). Some properties may be private roads covered by easements for ingress and egress. Easements are not extinguished by the foreclosure sale but remain with the land. You may not block the easement to try to extort money out of the users.

    Similarly, when you see that a property lies near or under a transmission line easement, there will likely be restrictions against building anything on the land. Transmission line easements do appear on the Assessor's maps but private easements do not.

    Some properties may be subject to use restrictions and covenants set up in the original plat. Some of these may be labeled Open Space, Open Area, Greenbelt or similar. Their use is often strictly limited. The King County Department of Developmental & Environmental Services has ruled it will not issue building permits on any such lots. You should also be aware of properties where the legal description contains the term "Drainage Easement" or Retention Pond" or similar terms.

    It is up to you to know exactly what you are bidding on. We cannot stress this too strongly. Every year people who have done little or no research or who do not know how to read a legal description buy properties that, to them, are totally useless. Knowledgeable parties who have done the proper research will avoid these properties. We do not overturn a sale and refund the purchase price because a bidder didn't know what they were bidding on, nor because they didn't understand the legal description.
    Do not count on buying a house at the foreclosure auction. Normally, owners of improved properties subject to tax foreclosure will raise the money to redeem the property before the sale, often at the last minute. Most houses that are foreclosed on have delinquent loans held by banks, mortgage companies or other lenders. There is no department within the county that has information on these lending agency foreclosures.
    Properties not sold to the public at the auction are sold to King County. These parcels are thereafter called "Tax Title Properties". Most of these parcels are of little value which is why they didn't sell at the auction in the first place. Many of these properties are "dangling strips" or "isolated triangles". The former are usually narrow strips anywhere from a few inches to a few feet wide that were left over because of an error in a legal description, a survey or platting error, or a mismeasurement by the Assessor's office. The triangles generally are created when a street or highway cuts through a lot leaving a small isolated triangle cut off from the rest of the lot or block.
    The County may try to sell the Tax Title Properties at some future date after the foreclosure sale. Tax Title sale information may be obtained by calling the Real Estate Services at 206-205-5638.
    THE TAX FORECLOSURE AUCTION

    No King County Employee or officer, or person who is an immediate family member of and residing with a King County employee, may bid at the sale, nor may such person bid as an agent or allow any agent to bid on their behalf. RCW 84.64.080

    We do not have a bidder registration requirement.

    The minimum bid includes the amount due to the County for the tax, interest, penalties and foreclosure costs. Bidding must be done in person, not by phone or mail. This is an open oral auction, not a sealed bid auction.

    Payment by the successful bidder must be made immediately upon winning the bid. Payment must be made by cashier's check, money order, certified check, or cash. NO OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED INCLUDING PERSONAL CHECKS, BUSINESS, CHECKS, CREDIT CARD CHECKS, TRAVELER'S CHECKS, LETTERS OF CREDIT OR SIMILAR. There are no exceptions to this policy. Checks are made payable to the King County Treasury.

    Most people bring a cashier's check made payable to the King County Treasury for the maximum amount they are willing to spend, whether they intend to buy just one parcel or bid on several. If the check is for too much, we refund the difference, but if it's not enough you won't have time to run to the bank for more.

    Foreclosure section phone number (206) 296-4184. 


Related Links

    Foreclosure Auction "Terms of Sale"
    Foreclosure List
    Foreclosure Data Downloads

For "Foreclosure" related questions, e-mail the webmaster at DOFweb.finance@kingcounty.gov or call 206-296-4184.

----------


## osan

> Price is a function of subjective valuations of individuals, not exclusively, mostly, or even much in part to do with production costs. *In fact, production costs have nothing to do with price*. Production costs do though have everything to do with a companies profitability or losses. Therefore, it is entirely factual that the customer does not bear such costs.



Oooo.... d00d, where in heaven did you get such an idea?  This is very wrong.  Price has much to do with production cost.  If you study microeconomics you will learn just how intimately the two are related in that if one cannot get a minimum price for a given product, there is no point in manufacturing it... unless you are engaging in a loss-leader strategy as is the case in many razor-blade industries.  But those are somewhat they exceptions.  Generally speaking, there is a break-even point WRT cost v. price and if you cannot at least achieve that level of revenue you are committing business suicide.

Are you familiar with NPV analysis and IRR?  If not, do some research and you will learn just how intimately related cost and price are.

And that last sentence really makes no sense to me at all.  The PAYING customer most certainly bears the marginal costs of the widgets he buys.  If the widget is a new-fangled version, he is also bearing his share of the fixed costs associated with production.  Why do you think early adopters for items such as cell phones paid today's equivalent of many thousands of dollars for devices that did nothing more than place calls?  Why do NEW drugs always cost so much?  Because the fixed costs of bringing a new drug to market are utterly STAGGERING and if the manufacturer does not recoup those costs, they will not have the material means for developing others.  We can thank government interference in the free market for this, by the way, but that is another story for another time.  The customers bear ALL costs, generally speaking.  Those costs are built into the price structure and as those costs shift in time in major proportion from fixed to marginal, prices tend to ease.  This is a widely observable pattern.




> I would like to see you try and run an establishment that has no way for customers to come to your property in a convenient manner. Furthermore, an establishment who charges customers to even come to his commercial establishment in the first place (that is, paying to use storefront pathways, parking lots, roadways, etc.), would find themselves with few customers. There would be many partnerships in commercial areas that provided free use of roads, paths, parking, etc. in a free-society.


Wowe... I take it you have never been to a NYC dance club?  You pay to get in and the lines sometimes wrap around the block.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The point is that you are the one who keeps bringing up Marxism in reference to Georgism when you know full well it is intellectually dishonest.


It's apropos. Their disagreements to me are like watching scraps between the left and right wing of the same party.  




> What do the classical liberals say about property in land? Read what they actually said please. But I know you won't. 
> http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates


I did read what they said. But I'm not a 19th century classical liberal, and I just don't happen to agree with those who advocated land in common and ground rents paid _by everyone, regardless of status_, to the state as a solution, any more than I agree with the problem I think they misidentified.   




> Where does he say "collectivize the land"? This is part of the reason why these threads on land and property get so long. You royal libertarians refuse to use correct terminology.


No, that's where common sense trumps the hair-splitting definition torturing semantics I refuse to play along with.  I could have said "collectivize/socialize ground rents", and I could differentiate, like EW would like, between titles and ownership - but that would be intellectually dishonest, a steaming pile of dung by any other name.  The mechanics and the net effect is all I care about, and will leave disingenuous wordsmiths to their self-deceptive jerk circle. That's their great gobs of lumpy fun.  The extent to which an entity has the power to charge rent for a thing, regardless of the rationale, motive, or what you label it, is the extent to which that entity assumes OWNERSHIP over that thing.  And when that OWNERSHIP EFFECT is total, as appropriated by the state, that OWNERSHIP OF THAT THING is collectivized. No dip-$#@!ty hair-splitty mental masturbation about possession or title, or the rationale or motives behind it, will mitigate the core essence of the fact that it is "collectivized land". 




> So I assume you agree with Locke when he says "the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men"?


No, I don't - I agreed with his usage of the word common as it related to INDIVIDUAL rights that happened to be "common" (equal and inherent to EACH - not a collectivized ALL). So there's no use in playing the fallacy of composition card, as if my agreement with one thing said by a man implies acceptance of everything stated by that same man.  Locke was just a human and flawed like you, me and everyone else.  




> On the contrary, Georgists do seek to unviolate Locke's Proviso through the LVT. All that land that is locked up will be freed when landlords realize it is not economically sound to keep it idle. Land prices will drop. More individuals will be able to afford to possess a piece of land.


Wrong. They seek to encourage and violate Locke's Proviso with impunity, by the selling of Violation Indulgences to the highest bidders, while treating EVERYONE, from the poorest to the richest (and ESPECIALLY the poorest) as if they were all nothing but bidders for privilege - the very speculators (et al) who had acted beyond their rights (Locke's Proviso) and as a matter of privilege.  

There is nothing about LVT or proposals of its proponents that make a fundamental, principled (non-economic) distinction between residential, agricultural or commercial property, and yet *the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL*.  Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced.  _Individuals. Private primary residences._  They are all treated as "equal violators" of Locke's Proviso, and without regard for the fact that the average landowner/homeowner with a single residence and a patch of green front and back is *not part of that mix*, has violated nobody's rights, and caused no violation of Locke's Proviso to begin with. 

And here's where I split with Locke. Whatever lands were bought up on speculation, secondary income or other purposes, could very well be subject to LVT.  Not primary homes.  $#@! factors of production - homes are a basic requirement for life itself, and I do have respect for all first comers whose homes just HAPPEN to be located in an area that increases in value.  That's their windfall, that belongs to them and nobody else.  I don't buy into the idea that the so-called "best lands" gobbled up by first-comers constitutes a violation to others, or that others have a valid equal "common" claim to the best lands.  Not where primary residences are concerned.  Period.  They are entitled not only to access to title and possession, but actual OWNERSHIP and SECURITY IN THAT OWNERSHIP- including the land rents on their primary residence, which I argue should be theirs as a matter of right. 




> Yes, it can be. Its called the Citizen's Dividend.


Yes, just as a supreme dictator CAN be benevolent, just as he CAN be brutal and oppressive.  With enough vision and integrity, and human wisdom and benevolence, every single political regime on Earth CAN work swimmingly well for everyone. So what? First principles first - and a taxing mechanism or spending intention is not a first principle. 




> Check out these collectivist government lovers!
> 
> James Buchanan
> Adam Smith (a juicy favorite patriot to geolibs everywhere)
> Francois Quesnay
> Milton Friedman (a friend of both the Fed and LVT lovers everywhere)
> Frank Chodorov
> Albert Jay Nock
> 
> OMG! The libertarian movement was infiltrated by statists!


Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp :::  You weren't stupid enough to think that any general ideology or "movement" was an homogeneous blend of purely common thought and absolute agreement, were you? 




> Georgists do not argue against exclusive possession.


No, they encourage it, in fact.  Come one, come all, the more the merrier, fight/compete amongst yourselves, and take as much of the available land as you'd like. It doesn't matter to a Georgist who possesses the land; whether it's a single Super-rich entity or many not-so-rich, as it's all just revenue to the taxing jurisdiction.  May the highest bidder win, the state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered.  




> So a wasteland is just as good for human use as fertile soil?


Oh, are you back in an 18th-19th century mindset with regard to land, without a critical modern questioning thought, or are you specifically referring to AGRICULTURAL land?  Because we have evolved. We're not an agrarian farming economy any more.  I'm talking about primary residences -- HOMES -- setting aside even the now relatively scarce "family farms" for the moment.  The basic primary need involved in these cases has NOTHING to do with soil fertility, and indeed most residential land gets NONE of its value from the fertility of the underlying soil.  So much for that.  




> So let me get this straight, you are okay with an LVT as long as its only charged to speculators? If you really believe its their land, their rightful property, then whats wrong with speculation?


I guess you weren't paying attention, then, as this is the one area where I happen to agree, in theory and principle, with Locke.  It doesn't matter to me whether it's speculators or the state causing opportunities for LANDOWNERSHIP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT to be withheld from free and natural persons, in violation of Locke's Proviso.  I said earlier that not all rights are absolute.  Your right to free speech does not extend to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, or yelling into someone's ear through an amplifier at 130 decibels.  So I would not consider it unreasonable for the people, the state, to distinguish between land that is owned as a matter of right or merely possessed as a matter of privilege. And that privileged status could very well extend to: secondary residential land, land that of any kind that is possessed by foreigners, corporations and other privileged entities, land that is merely held but not developed, for the sole purpose of withholding, etc.,. 

However, until the sharp distinction is made, as matter of first principles, between those acting as a matter of right and those acting as a matter of privilege, I see LVT as just one more revenue stream, one more taxing scheme, and one more means of abuse (even abuse from the tyranny of the majority) with only the most tenuous of checks and balances.  




> You ignore the fact that Locke declared land the common property of all: "The earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men..."


I did ignore it, because I don't agree with it. 




> ...and distinguishes this common property from private property: "...yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."


...and the Earth he requires to live on, the land rents of which are his as a matter of right.  Promises of LVT exemptions and dividends are not required where this exists as a right held in Common (meaning "inalienable to each and every *individual*").  You can stash the exemptions for these particular persons, because the privilege rule need not, and should not (IMO), apply to them.  Then are the children (ALONE) free.  All else can pay tribute as dictated or required. 





> Land by itself was never anyone's product of labor and it cannot be rightfully considered property.  Locke supports this argument when he states, "When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its private property at all."


Whether the Georgist interpretation matches with Locke or not, any land that is lived on as a primary residence is "being cultivated" in my mind, with a human crop, and rightfully considered property (my normative, in stark opposition to the Georgist/LVT normative that argues otherwise) -- right down to the land rents which rightfully belong to the owner of that home - that _primary residence_.




> Now I do disagree with Locke to an extent here. Land, whether cultivated or uncultivated, can never be considered private property. Only the products of labor can be private property.


Your normative, of course. Your idea of what SHOULD never (not "can never") be considered private property. My normative is in contrast to you both where primary residences are concerned.  I don't care if it's a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, an average home on a residential street, or a shack on a hilly acre in the Black Hills with single-wide and cars cinder-blocks in the front and backyard -- homes are sacred to me - no power to tax, zero power to destroy, nobody wrongfully deprived of anything in the process. AND -- with all the privileged entities wanting into the market, NO NEED FOR REVENUE sourced from a basic human survival need.   




> Thomas Paine was right on: "Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
> http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates


I love Thomas Paine, and don't give two $#@!s about his view on ground rent for land -- but ONLY as it applies to what I feel SHOULD BE the sovereignty of every individual in his or her home.  Until that distinction is made, LVT is just another potential for widespread abuse and unintended consequences in the making.  Nothing more than a union between the state and the highest bidders on any and all lands - with their attitude that granny and her "unproductive hands" can go take a powder - she doesn't have rights, and no expectation for security in her home -- only a _possible_ promise of exemptions or dividends from what is presumed to be privilege on hers and everyone's part. In Common.

----------


## osan

> More and more you're sounding like Roy with your constant repetition and simplistic and dogmatic pronouncements and denouncements.  
> 
> OK, so I'm a defeated, brainwashed, blinkered liar who is incapable of learning (does that make you the teacher?).  I'm also either a clear nut or someone who is paid to infest forums.  Does that mean you infested this forum for free?! Say it ain't so! And here along I thought you were raking in the big bucks like me. You just have to know where to apply.


STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!  Bad Steven! Bad BAD Steven!

----------


## Steven Douglas

> STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!  Bad Steven! Bad BAD Steven!


I must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Oooo.... d00d, where in heaven did you get such an idea?  This is very wrong.  Price has much to do with production cost.  If you study microeconomics you will learn just how intimately the two are related in that if one cannot get a minimum price for a given product, there is no point in manufacturing it... unless you are engaging in a loss-leader strategy as is the case in many razor-blade industries.  But those are somewhat they exceptions.  Generally speaking, there is a break-even point WRT cost v. price and if you cannot at least achieve that level of revenue you are committing business suicide.
> 
> Are you familiar with NPV analysis and IRR?  If not, do some research and you will learn just how intimately related cost and price are.
> 
> And that last sentence really makes no sense to me at all.  The PAYING customer most certainly bears the marginal costs of the widgets he buys.  If the widget is a new-fangled version, he is also bearing his share of the fixed costs associated with production.  Why do you think early adopters for items such as cell phones paid today's equivalent of many thousands of dollars for devices that did nothing more than place calls?  Why do NEW drugs always cost so much?  Because the fixed costs of bringing a new drug to market are utterly STAGGERING and if the manufacturer does not recoup those costs, they will not have the material means for developing others.  We can thank government interference in the free market for this, by the way, but that is another story for another time.  The customers bear ALL costs, generally speaking.  Those costs are built into the price structure and as those costs shift in time in major proportion from fixed to marginal, prices tend to ease.  This is a widely observable pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> Wowe... I take it you have never been to a NYC dance club?  You pay to get in and the lines sometimes wrap around the block.


Where in the world did I get such an idea? Perhaps Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Fetter, and Rothbard? Price formation and costs of production are two completely separate concepts and the costs of production _de novo_ have no bearing on prices. 

You are talking about as I said earlier, profitability, which again, has nothing to do with prices. Just because it costs you 50$ to make a product, market it, and attempt to sell it doesn't mean the product is worth (valued) or priced at 50$ or more. It could be that it is entirely worthless and priced at zero because no one values it. 

The paying customer certainly does not bear any production costs. Production costs are entirely burdensome to the owner of the investment / capital. The reason for the high prices for new technological gadgets is myriad: marginal utility, high demand little supply, etc. Hell, even the wikipedia page for price has this correct and color me surprised when I did a quick check to see how warped they had it...

So, yeah, if you had read any Austrian, or any subjective value economic work then you would know how prices form. Anyways, I'm too tired to write more, suffice to say open any Austrian work and go to price/marginal utility/subjective theory of value sections and read for yourself.

----------


## Roy L

> As someone who has worked for decades in manufacturing and now own a service business, I can assure you that you are very wrong in saying that production costs have nothing to do with price.


He is correct, and you are an economic ignoramus.



> Consider it this way:  No business would be able to stay in business if they couldn't charge enough to cover their production costs.


So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," businesses all stay in business, no matter how much they spend to produce their products.

Brilliant.



> I used the word "normally", because most businesses I know embed something generic like the cost of a sidewalk or parking lot into the price of what they sell, but I do know several that do have a separate fee for parking.


No, they don't.  They can't set prices.  What they are doing is trying to reduce their costs below the price they think they can get for their products.



> It allows those customers who are especially cost conscious to decide whether to spend the extra money.  In many cases, this would be more bother than it is worth, but sometimes it works out to the best to have that sort of expense broken out as an option.


You clearly have no understanding of price in a market.  None.

----------


## Roy L

> Price however, is determined subjectively and purely by marginal utility and time preferences.


As price is what a thing traded for, it is objective by definition.



> So, no, production costs have little to nothing to do with prices.


Right.  Jevons showed that price controls production costs, not the other way around.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> As price is what a thing traded for, it is objective by definition.
> 
> Right.  Jevons showed that price controls production costs, not the other way around.


No, prices are not objective. If they are objective, what objective measurement are they based upon? Prices form due to individuals subjective valuations. Prices are not static, they constantly are responses to individuals changing values and hence, demand and utility. Furthermore, prices are very localized due to their nature. If prices of a good or service are objective, then by definition they should be so everywhere, but you could go to one store in one town and another store in an adjacent town and find two widely divergent prices for the same good, and in many cases, two adjacent commercial-lots! 

Other than that, you are right. Jevons was a major contributor to understanding subjective value and utility with Menger and Walras.

----------


## Roy L

> As for the elderly widow thrown out of her home, I can not comment on that situation of which I do not know.  Is it plausible?  Yes due to state/county policies for confiscation of one's property if they do not pay property taxes.


The claim was not that an elderly widow might get thrown out of her home -- private landlords throw elderly widows out of their homes all the time, and evil anti-LVT liars see nothing wrong with that at all -- but rather that her home would be STOLEN by property tax authorities, and she would be put out into the street.  I await a single documented case where that has EVER happened.



> If you would step into the real world, go to the county/state office which deals with these things and request said information you would see for yourself (you can even do research).


I await your documented case of an elderly widow's home being STOLEN and she being put out into the street by property tax authorities.  One documented case.  One.



> There is plenty of documentation available to you in regards to the information you seek.


Then it should be easy for you to provide it.  But you haven't.  And I don't think you will, either.



> Tax lien certificates / tax deed sales do happen.  If an individual can not pay, the lien holder (depending on the state) can wind up with the property.  You can attend one of these auctions, or purchase tax liens/ deed certificates.


Please buy a dictionary, and acquaint yourself with the difference between asset liquidation to satisfy a liability, and stealing.  Please buy a dictionary, and familiarize yourself with the difference between "moving into accommodation better suited to her needs and means" and "being thrown into the street."

Unless you'd rather just keep lying, of course...



> Here's a simple video that explains the tax deed auction process.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgCmNllMRw
> 
> Here's an auction - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9SLojkPLw
> 
> Another one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfZbyDouUA
> 
> Another sale from a 06' or so (current tax deed info is in blue down below from WA) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxwr2Qd6Tc8


Please explain how your silly videos support the claim that grannie's house is being *STOLEN* and she is being put out into the *street*.

Either that, or admit you're just lying.



> As to state services, to suggest that government should collect taxes would mean they are providing a valuable service better than the market can.


That is certainly true.



> The track record of government providing services is horrid.


That is certainly false.



> The waste and abuse of state monopolies wherein there is no competition is rampant.


Only in cases where competition would be meaningful and therefore appropriate.



> Take a look at road construction.  Innovation in road construction has remained stagnant in many cases.  Instead of "rubberizing" a road (among other advancements), which will extend the life of a road tremendously, there were state DOT's that mixed in glass with the asphalt.  What happens when glass get's wet, or has a sheen of oil on it?  It becomes very slippery and can become a hazard.  A hazard it became, hence the requirement to chop up the road and repave it.


Someone had to try it, or we wouldn't know what was wrong with it.



> Then there are instances where the road department will wish for either the same budget as prior years, or more.  Therefore, roads that need repairs are left in horrible shape, while current jobs are extended, or done incorrectly requiring repaving and so on.  If this were a business, it would have been bankrupt after the first week of operation.


Indeed.  The record of private road building is quite unanimous on that score: the road builders go bankrupt, while the landowners beside the route get rich.

HELLO???



> The state doesn't have to worry, as it can confiscate more money through taxation, or have the FedGov issue freshly printed stimulus funds, wherein all whom hold the currency are then robbed.


You don't understand monetary economics any more than you do land economics.



> This of course doesn't stop at roads, it happens in sanitation as well as numerous other area's (DOD, HHS, and so on).  For what reason is there for government to provide sanitation, when the market is capable of handling these services, and has done so successfully?


The market has not done so except by following the model of public provision.



> So, if an individual chooses private sanitation, they are forced to pay for the state provided sanitation through taxes, as they simply can not opt out, as that is much to difficult for bureaucracy to handle as many are busy trying to find clever new ways to rob individuals.


"Meeza hatesa gubmint."



> Look at Amtrak,


???  You are presumably aware that Amtrak exists because private passenger railroad services could not survive?



> other GOC's, and even businesses that have been subsidized through fed and state politicians.  AIG, Goldman Sachs, Fannie & Freddie, Solyndra and many more have horrid track records.


Yes, and so do many businesses.  So what?



> Individuals may try and claim: The government can provide services cheaper than the market!  The price may be lower if one ignores the unseen costs associated with such services which mostly are above that of the market price after the seen and unseen costs are realized.


Google "market failure" and start reading.



> Individuals create wealth, not communities.


Stupid garbage beneath contempt.  How much wealth could any individual create without the community, without government?  Somalia shows you the latter, and the economic condition of hunter-gatherers shows you the former.



> So, what if the community decides  (as some individuals believe there should be no private property in regards to land) the den area and spare bedroom located in the house you live in is to be utilized to shelter a homeless person, or an individual whom chose not to work?


They aren't land, try not to be stupid and dishonest.

What if private individuals decided to kidnap all the hot blondes and sell them as sex slaves in Pakistan?



> They decide the area you just spent $40,000 to improve will be where this individual will reside.  For if it were not for the community, you may not have had the $40,000 to spend to improve the household.


Stupid garbage unrelated to anything we have said.



> Suppose a land title holder Individual A invested 10 million dollars into the land and the business that occupies it.  The value of a large area of land increases in value due to Individual A's investments.  New businesses open, and things are booming.   The politicians through funds received through the LVT decide to subsidize Individual A's competitor, Individual B.


Why would they?  It's not going to increase LVT revenue.



> They also write regulations in favor of Individual B's business.   Artificial capital to the competitor eventually forces Individual A out of business.  The individual looses everything and is unable to pay the LVT.


Or how about a different scenario?  The government uses LVT funds to buy a bullet, and just shoots the guy.  See what LVT has done?  A bleeding corpse on the floor!

Do you understand what the words, "infinitely stupid and dishonest" mean?



> It was that individual A's business and investments that had raised the value of other land throughout the area and also increased business activity, yet individual A is now broke due to the actions of those politicians and can only afford to live off the land.


And on your planet -- i.e., the planet you are imagining, because it is logically impossible that it could be the case on any actual planet -- that might even be relevant to LVT.



> Does the state in which collected the LVT reimburse Individual A for all the investments and subsequent improvement to that area?  Does the community reimburse that individual as they have benefited from Individual A's investments?  If it weren't for individual A, the rest of the community wouldn't have had those gains.  Oh well individual A, the property will be confiscated and auctioned off.  You can always move to another community.


It's actually worse than that.  Suppose that under LVT, the government invested all the LVT revenue in a space program that used a giant rocket to shift the orbit of an asteroid so that it hit the earth, exterminating all advanced life forms.  That means... you guessed it: what the LVT advocates here actually want to do is exterminate all advanced life forms on earth!  My God, LVT is just indescribably diabolical!

Arbitrarily large amount of stupid, dishonest, irrelevant garbage deleted.

----------


## Roy L

> No, prices are not objective.


They most certainly and indisputably are.



> If they are objective, what objective measurement are they based upon?


The amount of money that changed hands.



> Prices form due to individuals subjective valuations.


So do poker pots.  That doesn't mean you can't count the money in the middle of the table and come up with an absolute, objective number.



> Prices are not static, they constantly are responses to individuals changing values and hence, demand and utility.


Same with poker pots.  Please explain how the amount of money sitting in the middle of the table is subjective.

Thought not.

Austrian School economics = deliberate elimination of rational thought.



> Furthermore, prices are very localized due to their nature.


<yawn>  Poker pots.



> If prices of a good or service are objective, then by definition they should be so everywhere,


Garbage.  Wind speed is objective.  It isn't the same everywhere.

So I'm curious, Disciple: how many more times, and in how many more different ways, do I have to prove you flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective fact before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?



> but you could go to one store in one town and another store in an adjacent town and find two widely divergent prices for the same good, and in many cases, two adjacent commercial-lots!


What a load of stupid, dishonest garbage.  All prices are objective facts.  It doesn't matter if they are different in different times and places any more than wind speed is not objective just because it is different in different times and places.



> Other than that, you are right. Jevons was a major contributor to understanding subjective value and utility with Menger and Walras.


You'll find I'm right about everything else, too.

----------


## Roy L

> Oooo.... d00d, where in heaven did you get such an idea?  This is very wrong.


Disciple is correct.



> Price has much to do with production cost.


But it is price that determines how much producers will be willing to spend to produce the product, not the other way around.  That was Jevons's crucial insight -- which some people still haven't learned a century and change later.



> Generally speaking, there is a break-even point WRT cost v. price and if you cannot at least achieve that level of revenue you are committing business suicide.


Exactly.  Which means businesses CANNOT in fact just add their costs to the prices they charge.  Duh.



> Are you familiar with NPV analysis and IRR?  If not, do some research and you will learn just how intimately related cost and price are.


<yawn>  Try Stigler, "The Theory of Price."



> The PAYING customer most certainly bears the marginal costs of the widgets he buys.


He most certainly does not.  He couldn't care less what the marginal cost is.  He will pay what it is worth to him, and the least a competing supplier will charge for the same item, and not a penny more.  There is nothing the producer can do to shift his costs onto the customer.



> If the widget is a new-fangled version, he is also bearing his share of the fixed costs associated with production.


More stupid garbage.



> Why do you think early adopters for items such as cell phones paid today's equivalent of many thousands of dollars for devices that did nothing more than place calls?


Supply is so small.



> Why do NEW drugs always cost so much?


They don't if they aren't patentable.



> Because the fixed costs of bringing a new drug to market are utterly STAGGERING and if the manufacturer does not recoup those costs, they will not have the material means for developing others.


Garbage.  Cost has no effect on price.  It's purely monopoly rent seeking that makes new drugs expensive.



> We can thank government interference in the free market for this, by the way, but that is another story for another time.


You just admitted you are wrong.



> The customers bear ALL costs, generally speaking.


Garbage, as proved above.



> Those costs are built into the price structure


No, they aren't.  Price is determined by supply and demand, not cost.



> and as those costs shift in time in major proportion from fixed to marginal, prices tend to ease.  This is a widely observable pattern.


Prices ease as supply increases, duh.

----------


## Roy L

> To me, it is irrelevant whether the source of the tax is income or a sales tax or a toll.  What matters is that there is a correlation between amount used and amount paid.  If I use no services, I should owe no tax.


I see.  So, if government builds a highway, and then issues you a license to set up a toll booth and charge tolls on that public highway, then as long as you don't USE the highway, you shouldn't have to pay any tax?  Even if you are collecting millions of dollars a day from commuters, and contributing exactly nothing in return??

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

Which is why the fundamental principle of sound taxation policy specifically says, "BENEFICIARY pay," and not "USER pay."



> LVT not only doesn't provide good correlation, it completely severs any correlation except coincidentally


What a stupid lie.  Land value is the exact measure of how much the landowner is taking from society.  It is the exact, identical value of what he deprives everyone else of by owning the land.



> and that is why it is so evil.


Speaking of evil, it is servants of evil that must inevitably resort to lies, as we have seen proved so very conclusively in this thread, and all the LVT threads.

----------


## Roy L

> Really?  That is news to me.  Good news!   And I take it there is no state-level property tax.


NH could not be so free and prosperous without a substantial state property tax.  You know that.



> I must admit, New Hampshire is sounding better all the time.


High property tax rates will do that.

----------


## Roy L

> Government basically provides services, whether that service is in the form of protection from foreign invaders, roads for travel, or a system of welfare should one need it. (no commentary on the efficiency or morality of those service, just a statement of their existence).  It only makes sense that the more service one uses, the more one should pay for the services.


But as I have repeatedly told you, and you always refuse to know, we are *ALREADY PAYING LANDOWNERS FULL MARKET VALUE* for the services we get from government.  Why do you want us to pay for them twice so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing?



> If one uses none of the services, one should not pay for them.


Here's a very simple question.  But I predict that it is so simple, so obvious, so indisputable, that you will refuse to know the answer:

If government provided free food for everyone at a certain location, and the location was privately owned by someone who lived in another country, so that he never actually wanted or took any of the free food, but just charged everyone else full market value for permission to come onto his property and pick up the free food, do you think he should owe no taxes because he is not taking any of the food himself?



> LVT fails to address that whole issue of the relationship between use and payment.


Lie.  LVT is the only system that addresses it accurately and justly, by requiring those who use the services to pay for them, and cutting out the parasitic middleman who charges for them without either using them or providing them.



> It disconnects the two.


Disproved above.



> I dislike that and find it morally reprehensible that a person can lose their home because they did not pay for something they neither needed nor wanted.


<sigh>  A man who does not need or want any bread goes into a grocery store and starts taking loaves off the shelves.  He takes the loaves out of the store and throws them into the river.

You claim that he should not have to pay for the bread because he didn't want it or need it or use it.

Please try to understand: that claim is indisputably stupid.



> To be forced to pay for something you neither need nor want smacks of organized crime.


Like the affluent lifestyles of landowners, perhaps....?

ROTFL!

----------


## Roy L

> You will realize he is just a parrot, repeating the same lines over and over.


When people keep saying "2 + 2 = 5" over and over, the only rational response is to say, "No, 2 + 2 = 4" over and over.



> It's not cleverness he has, it's total blinding hate,


Evil is the appropriate object of hatred.



> unlimited time,


But limited stomach.  And it's reached its limit.



> and lack of the mechanism that would make most of us crazed with boredom after typing the same snarky sentence 500 times in a month (500 times in a few days, probably, if you were to monitor his accounts on all the various message boards across the internet).  You will rarely find a post of his with more than 20% new original content.


Because what I am refuting is the same stupid, dishonest garbage I already refuted 1000 times before.



> Realizing that, you should realize it's pointless to try to change his mind.  He's not even thinking about his own posts -- he can't, the repetitiveness and banality would drive a human nuts -- and so he's _certainly_ not thinking about _yours_!


Lie.  I wouldn't be able always to demolish them without thinking about them.



> It's best to just consider him a simple Turing machine responding to certain key trigger words with certain preset responses.


See above.



> Then you can have some fun with it, that is, if you enjoy automated caustic rantings.  It's like talking to Siri, except she hates you, and humanity in general,


I hate the lies.  Like the one you just told.



> and has a lot of weird ideas.  Well, mostly one weird idea.  She thinks all the stuff she hates about the world can be solved by this Idea X -- let's call it "everyone should eat more fish."


Only an end to the dishonesty of lying apologists for evil could end evil, which is all I hate about the world.



> That would make the world a beautiful place.  So settle in (if you like) and she/he/it will tell you all about the Annual Holocaust of the Fishless and George the ex-prison camp inmate who really was even worse off when he got out of the gulag because, after all, he still didn't have any fish.


See what I mean about dishonesty?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> As for the elderly widow thrown out of her home, I can not comment on that situation of which I do not know.  Is it plausible?  Yes due to state/county policies for confiscation of one's property if they do not pay property taxes.


That applies to any debt for any tax due.  Why do you kep on about that seizure of a home to pay a debt only applies to property taxes when you this is 100% untrue?

People are not stupid. They know this is untrue. 77% in ND never sucked it in.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...familiarize yourself with the difference between "moving being forced to move into accommodation better suited to Roy's view of her needs and her means to provide for the demands of the taxing authority, which come due without regard to her circumstances or ability to pay without liquidating her house" and "being literally thrown into the street" (since a figure of speech that most people know means "evicted" does not compute with Roy L).


There, I fixed it for you.

And to everyone else - told you he was playing word games with the word STOLEN.  Now onto the word MURDER - if we could just get Roy to provide documentation for just one of the millions of murders that occur every year as a result of someone owning the land their house is on...

----------


## EcoWarrier

> the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL.  Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced.


They should first remove taxes on the buildings (improvements), then;Base the tax on the land values (annually), then;Tax ALL land.Lower, or eliminate, other taxes that harm production of people or organizations.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I await your documented case of an elderly widow's home being STOLEN and she being put out into the street by property tax authorities.  One documented case.  One.


Here are homes that people were evicted from by private organizations because they could not pay their debts:




Here are shanty towns in the USA. Populated by people who were evicted because they could not pay debts:






*The old widow only need to downsize, not join those in the shanty towns.**Using LVT, the old widow only need to have her tax deffered until sale of property or death.*

These shanty towns need not be there. The first video gives the solution.

----------


## Roy L

> There, I fixed it for you.


No, you lied about what I plainly wrote, and about the facts of objective physical reality, just as you always do.



> And to everyone else - told you he was playing word games with the word STOLEN.


You lie.  But somehow _I'm_ the one "playing word games."

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...



> Now onto the word MURDER - if we could just get Roy to provide documentation for just one of the millions of murders that occur every year as a result of someone owning the land their house is on...


You again lie about what I have plainly written... in order to rationalize, justify, and excuse two Holocausts a year.

Infinitely despicable.

One person owning the land under their house isn't a problem any more than one person being a slave is a problem (unless that one person happens to be you, of course).  There are so many people suffering oppression and injustice for so many other reasons -- a million Americans are in prison for no good reason, for one -- that one single person being a slave just isn't an issue.  But just as a million slaves is a totally different proposition from one slave, so a million landowners is a totally different proposition from one landowner, because a million landowners remove effectively ALL one's opportunity to exercise one's right to liberty.

----------


## osan

> Where in the world did I get such an idea? Perhaps Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Fetter, and Rothbard? Price formation and costs of production are two completely separate concepts and the costs of production _de novo_ have no bearing on prices. 
> 
> You are talking about as I said earlier, profitability, which again, has nothing to do with prices. Just because it costs you 50$ to make a product, market it, and attempt to sell it doesn't mean the product is worth (valued) or priced at 50$ or more. It could be that it is entirely worthless and priced at zero because no one values it.


What you are asserting, may be true _in vacuo_, but is most certainly not so when operating within the normal business context of either making a profit (however meager) or at the very least breaking even.  I did mention that a business _can_ produce and sell products at a loss and it can be a very effective strategy in the broader business context.  However, because for most businesses the ability to break even or generate a profit is essential, costs and price are almost always intimately related.  One notable exception to this _can_ be the case of a monopoly, but those are rare and nearly always artificially created and maintained.  But when operating in the context of a _competitive market_, your assertion proves untrue at the low-end of the pricing spectrum.

Another great exception to consider is that of government, who is able to operate at staggering losses for extended periods of time because their revenue bases are expropriated from their "customers" at the ends of guns.  Europe, USA, Red China all come to mind.

Nonprofit organizations are notorious for being poorly run in terms of how they are manager with respect to their basic ratios.  This is largely due to the fact that those running such organizations are not running them as if they were _for-profit_ insofar as managerial efficiency is concerned.  Many of those organizations burn through cash faster than they take it in and then wonder why they are going out of business.  DUH.

I don't know if you have ever run a business.  Such narrowly true notions as those you have offered here, if employed in the ways your words could be readily taken to imply, would put one out of business in pretty short order.  I have consulted for many of the largest companies on the planet and none of them disregard the relationship between cost and pricing within the _practical goal_ of keeping one's nose above the surface during the course of doing business.

What is interesting here is that you have not really given a fuller contextual surround to your assertions.  What is the purpose of you seek?  Is it only to make a point on theory?  If so, you should have made that clear.  If you were making a practical point, I am afraid you missed the mark because thus far you have failed to demonstrate how your assertions have any value to those operating real businesses daily.  More specifically stated, how does one _use_ what you have asserted in order to gain a practical utility in daily operations?




> The paying customer certainly does not bear any production costs. Production costs are entirely burdensome to the owner of the investment / capital.


Again, you give insufficient information to make the assertion true, so I will fill in the blank here.  What you say is true _only_ under two cases.  The first is along the time line - business bears the cost burden _up front_ and the customer bears it along the continuum _if they buy_.  The second is in the case where the customer does not buy, period.  But if the transaction occurs, rare would it be for production costs not to be reflected as a proportion of the transacting price.  I do not suppose you have ever participated in pricing strategy activities.  I have.  The absolute baseline is _cost_.  Don't believe me?  Get a job in that area and you will see.

I've been in the real world where people do this for a living on a daily basis.  What counts is not some odd metaphysical theory about how things work, but rather of how people _think_, and experience has demonstrated to me unequivocally that most think that production cost is linked to price in the ways I have mentioned here when survival and profitability are the contextual goals under which an organization  operates.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Sales and Income taxes discourage exactly what we want encouraging - transactions and trade.  
Income Tax is a tax on trading of labor.Sales Tax is a tax on trading transactions. 

They are both taxes on production. Both are Bad taxes. It is amazing how few recognize this. 

Then there is the prospect of successful income tax evasion and avoidance. This requires powerful enforcement and severe penalties. All this costs. People are employed, using taxpayers money, not being engaged in growth activities, when engaged in this collection and enforcement.

Transaction taxes reduce income at source, then forcing many to engage in debt to live the life forced on us by social pressures.  People are forced into the jaws of the financial institutions. Financial institutions grow powerful as a result. Corruption may result from a combination of money and power.

Land Valuation Tax (LVT): 
Is much easier to enforce as land's location is known to the inchMuch cheaper to collect - a fraction of the costs of other taxesProvides a more stable demand for government spendingVitally, does not discourage transactions and trade, doing exactly the oppositeCurbs speculation on harmful land trading. 

People are less likely to turn to financial institutions for loans as they have more money in their pockets. Then .....financial institutions are less powerful and less vital to society.

----------


## EcoWarrier

*A Grinding Povertry Layer Emerges in an Era of Mass Wealth*

In the wake of the industrial revolution a sub-underclass emerged of grinding poverty.  How could this happen with all these technological advances and mass-production lowering prices in an educated population?  The wealth created in this technological age was mainly held by a few percentage of the population.  This should not be so.  This baffled many.  Many analyzed the situation.  The most famous in the 1800s was Karl Marx, who analyzed and wrote mainly on the failures of Capitalism - and got most right, that is why Marx never goes away.  Marx came up with his solutions to rectify this imbalance in society where an army of poor was created - an army of poor that should never have materialized.

Understandably, many concluded that the problem that created this layer of grinding poverty was the free-market.  To them it enabled wealth to quickly rise to the top and stay there by driving down wages.  They viewed the free-market had to be strictly controlled or eliminated.  Many kept the free-market and introduced socialist constructs, which worked in alleviating the grinding poverty level.  But it was not the complete answer as a massive imbalance in wealth distribution continued. The root of the problem did not lay with a true free-market. 

Many just were apologists for the system that created this grinding poverty pointing to unjustified laziness of the working people, etc, etc, and wanted it to remain. They tended to be people who gained a lot out of the far from perfect system - they were more concerned with self-interest and greed. This is largely the case today.

*Root Cause of Grinding Poverty Layer Identified*

At the time of Marx the likes of Henry George were also baffled why we had an army of poor in an age of great technological advancement and wealth creation. George concluded differently in his solution.

George saw that the free-market was a success and was instrumental in creating this wealth and advancement, so must be kept and be the core.  George based his theories on the free-market. An unrigged and unmonopolized free-market. That is fine but by itself it would not completely solve the problem. What was needed was an economic system that was very free and largely self controlling with minimal interference from the state.

George saw that the root of the problem that created the massive imbalance of wealth distribution was that:
*Commonwealth was being appropriated by private individuals and organizations -* socialized wealth was being privatized aiding in creating the grinding poverty layer.  *Private wealth was being socialized by taking income from individuals -* private wealth was being socialized.  Income tax and sales taxes took away wealth from working people. This penalized trading and production.

By reversing this injustice the wrongs will be righted.  George sought to keep socially created wealth in the social domain and privately created wealth in the private domain.  

*Solution to Wealth Imbalance & Elimination of Grinding Poverty*

So simple. Bingo!  It works.
*Keep socially created wealth socialized.**Keep privately created wealth privatized.*

So elegant, so simple.

*Identifying & reclaiming socially created wealth for social purposes -* George saw that economic growth created by the community, public & private, soaked into the land crystallizing as Land Values.  The mechanism to reclaim this socially created wealth to use for social purposes was *Land Valuation Tax*.  An annual tax on the values of all land in country.
*Elimination of transaction taxes to keep private wealth in private hands -* Income and sales taxes are a penalty on trading and production, exactly what we do not want. Enough revenue can be collected via Land Valuation Tax to pay for all government services leaving people and organizations to be productive by eliminating these bad taxes.

By basing his theories on those who went before him: Adam Smith, David Ricado, Mill, etc, Henry George got it mainly right. Geonomics has emerged from this which takes into account all land and natural resources given by nature, not made by man.

----------


## Roy L

> STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!  Bad Steven! Bad BAD Steven!


Dood, Steven IS the troll.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> What you are asserting, may be true _in vacuo_, but is most certainly not so when operating within the normal business context of either making a profit (however meager) or at the very least breaking even.  I did mention that a business _can_ produce and sell products at a loss and it can be a very effective strategy in the broader business context.  However, because for most businesses the ability to break even or generate a profit is essential, costs and price are almost always intimately related.  One notable exception to this _can_ be the case of a monopoly, but those are rare and nearly always artificially created and maintained.  But when operating in the context of a _competitive market_, your assertion proves untrue at the low-end of the pricing spectrum.
> 
> Another great exception to consider is that of government, who is able to operate at staggering losses for extended periods of time because their revenue bases are expropriated from their "customers" at the ends of guns.  Europe, USA, Red China all come to mind.
> 
> Nonprofit organizations are notorious for being poorly run in terms of how they are manager with respect to their basic ratios.  This is largely due to the fact that those running such organizations are not running them as if they were _for-profit_ insofar as managerial efficiency is concerned.  Many of those organizations burn through cash faster than they take it in and then wonder why they are going out of business.  DUH.
> 
> I don't know if you have ever run a business.  Such narrowly true notions as those you have offered here, if employed in the ways your words could be readily taken to imply, would put one out of business in pretty short order.  I have consulted for many of the largest companies on the planet and none of them disregard the relationship between cost and pricing within the _practical goal_ of keeping one's nose above the surface during the course of doing business.
> 
> What is interesting here is that you have not really given a fuller contextual surround to your assertions.  What is the purpose of you seek?  Is it only to make a point on theory?  If so, you should have made that clear.  If you were making a practical point, I am afraid you missed the mark because thus far you have failed to demonstrate how your assertions have any value to those operating real businesses daily.  More specifically stated, how does one _use_ what you have asserted in order to gain a practical utility in daily operations?
> ...


You still do not understand. You think price is a function of the producer of a good or service, it isn't. Price is a reflection of multiple parties coming to an agreement between their subjective values. Production costs have nothing to do with the price of a good, since one of the parties never cares or values such costs. I don't care if you spent 800,000$ to make some product, it can be worthless to me (price ergo ZERO), or it could be worth 5,000,000$ to me. 

You can't seem to grasp the difference between prices and profitability. Until you understand that a producer of a good cannot arbitrarily set the price of a good by him or herself, then we'll get somewhere. I bet you think if X Company puts a sticker on their products of 5,000$ and not one ever sells that you think the price of the good is 5,000. /shakes head

----------


## Travlyr

> You'll find I'm right about everything else, too.


And everyone else is a liar ... a big fat liar. LOL.

----------


## Roy L

Steven always spews a tsunami of stupid, dishonest garbage, and I don't have time to dissect and refute it all, so I'll just hit the most glaring fallacies, any one of which of course erases his whole "argument."



> It's apropos.


It's a lie.



> No, that's where common sense trumps the hair-splitting definition torturing semantics I refuse to play along with.


You refuse to use dictionary definitions, because they make it clear you are lying.



> I could have said "collectivize/socialize ground rents", and I could differentiate, like EW would like, between titles and ownership - but that would be intellectually dishonest, a steaming pile of dung by any other name.


No, that is a lie.  There is a very great difference between title and ownership: an owner has the right to benefit by something, and to dispose of it.  You can have title and have neither of those rights.  Allodial title, for example, does not include a right of disposal.  And a trust has title, but the benefits go to the beneficiary, not the trust.

See how easily all your stupid lies are refuted?



> The extent to which an entity has the power to charge rent for a thing, regardless of the rationale, motive, or what you label it, is the extent to which that entity assumes OWNERSHIP over that thing.


Nope.  You are objectively and indisputably wrong, as proved above.  A trustee has the power and a right to charge rent for something, but does not have the right to benefit by it, and does not own it.  You know this, as I have proved it to you multiple times before.  You just always have to lie about it.  Always.



> And when that OWNERSHIP EFFECT is total, as appropriated by the state, that OWNERSHIP OF THAT THING is collectivized.


Administration of possession and use, which all governments do wrt land, is not ownership, as proved above.  Government is the trustee of land, not its owner, as it does not have the right to keep the rent.

You just always have to lie about that.  Always.



> No dip-$#@!ty hair-splitty mental masturbation about possession or title, or the rationale or motives behind it, will mitigate the core essence of the fact that it is "collectivized land".


Calling facts silly names does not alter them, sorry.



> They seek to encourage and violate Locke's Proviso with impunity, by the selling of Violation Indulgences to the highest bidders,


The universal individual exemption restore's Locke's proviso: everyone has free access to as much and as good as anyone else.



> while treating EVERYONE, from the poorest to the richest (and ESPECIALLY the poorest) as if they were all nothing but bidders for privilege


Which they are.



> - the very speculators (et al) who had acted beyond their rights (Locke's Proviso) and as a matter of privilege.


Gibberish.



> There is nothing about LVT or proposals of its proponents that make a fundamental, principled (non-economic) distinction between residential, agricultural or commercial property, and yet *the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL*.  Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced.  _Individuals. Private primary residences._


Irrelevant.



> They are all treated as "equal violators" of Locke's Proviso, and without regard for the fact that the average landowner/homeowner with a single residence and a patch of green front and back is *not part of that mix*, has violated nobody's rights,


That is a flat-out lie.  He is violating others' rights to liberty by forcibly preventing them from using the land they would otherwise be at liberty to use.

You just have to refuse to know that fact, as you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.



> and caused no violation of Locke's Proviso to begin with.


Lie.  Others do not have access to as much and as good.  You are just lying.  You always have to lie.  Always.



> Whatever lands were bought up on speculation, secondary income or other purposes, could very well be subject to LVT.  Not primary homes.  $#@! factors of production


{^(|< stupid, evil, anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-economic lies.



> - homes are a basic requirement for life itself,


Lie.  *Land* is a basic requirement for life itself.  People have lived without homes.  They are called, "homeless," and they are homeless because private landowning has forcibly removed their rights to the liberty to provide themselves with homes.



> and I do have respect for all first comers whose homes just HAPPEN to be located in an area that increases in value.  That's their windfall, that belongs to them and nobody else.


No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you.  Why on earth would it be theirs?  They didn't earn it.



> I don't buy into the idea that the so-called "best lands" gobbled up by first-comers constitutes a violation to others,


But as a matter of indisputable objective fact, it does.



> or that others have a valid equal "common" claim to the best lands.  Not where primary residences are concerned.  Period.


Assertion lacking any support whatsoever.



> They are entitled not only to access to title and possession, but actual OWNERSHIP and SECURITY IN THAT OWNERSHIP- including the land rents on their primary residence, which I argue should be theirs as a matter of right.


You do no such thing.  See your own words, above.  You have offered, and will continue to offer, no _argument_ whatsoever, merely your tsunami of unsupported claims. 



> Yes, just as a supreme dictator CAN be benevolent, just as he CAN be brutal and oppressive.  With enough vision and integrity, and human wisdom and benevolence, every single political regime on Earth CAN work swimmingly well for everyone.


But LVT + UIE does not require such utopian conditions to work swimmingly well for everyone.



> First principles first - and a taxing mechanism or spending intention is not a first principle.


But in the case of LVT, they are the necessary IMPLEMENTATION of first principles.  



> Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp :::  You weren't stupid enough to think that any general ideology or "movement" was an homogeneous blend of purely common thought and absolute agreement, were you?


Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp :::  You weren't stupid enough to think that broad agreement on an issue among the intellectual leaders of a general ideology or "movement" wasn't an index of their common thought and basic principles, were you?



> No, they encourage it, in fact.  Come one, come all, the more the merrier, fight/


Geoists do not encourage people to "fight" for land, stop lying.



> compete amongst yourselves, and take as much of the available land as you'd like. It doesn't matter to a Georgist who possesses the land; whether it's a single Super-rich entity or many not-so-rich, as it's all just revenue to the taxing jurisdiction.  May the highest bidder win, the state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered.


Right.  And the LVT-funded state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered, too: on the side of the public interest.



> Oh, are you back in an 18th-19th century mindset with regard to land, without a critical modern questioning thought, or are you specifically referring to AGRICULTURAL land?


Stupid, dishonest strawman and false dichotomy fallacy.



> Because we have evolved. We're not an agrarian farming economy any more.  I'm talking about primary residences -- HOMES -- setting aside even the now relatively scarce "family farms" for the moment.  The basic primary need involved in these cases has NOTHING to do with soil fertility, and indeed most residential land gets NONE of its value from the fertility of the underlying soil.  So much for that.


The issue is economic advantage, not soil fertility (except to the extent that soil fertility is relevant to economic advantage at any particular location).  You know this.  Why pretend you do not?



> It doesn't matter to me whether it's speculators or the state causing opportunities for LANDOWNERSHIP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT to be withheld from free and natural persons, in violation of Locke's Proviso.


Self-contradictory claptrap.  Free persons cannot coexist with landownership, which inherently violates Locke's proviso.



> However, until the sharp distinction is made, as matter of first principles, between those acting as a matter of right and those acting as a matter of privilege,


You are the least capable of making such a distinction of anyone I know.  Except for Helmuth, maybe.



> I see LVT as just one more revenue stream, one more taxing scheme, and one more means of abuse (even abuse from the tyranny of the majority) with only the most tenuous of checks and balances.


But it has already been proved to you that it is not.  LVT is *THE ONLY POSSIBLE* way to make government pay for itself rather than taking from producers.



> ...and the Earth he requires to live on,


Hunter-gatherers, nomadic herders, and the homeless all prove he has no such right to own part of the earth.



> the land rents of which are his as a matter of right.


Nope.  They cannot be his as a matter of right, as he would not have them without others to provide them.



> Promises of LVT exemptions and dividends are not required where this exists as a right held in Common (meaning "inalienable to each and every *individual*").  You can stash the exemptions for these particular persons, because the privilege rule need not, and should not (IMO), apply to them.  Then are the children (ALONE) free.  All else can pay tribute as dictated or required.


Incomprehensible gibberish designed to erase the relevant facts from your brain.



> Whether the Georgist interpretation matches with Locke or not, any land that is lived on as a primary residence is "being cultivated" in my mind, with a human crop, and rightfully considered property (my normative, in stark opposition to the Georgist/LVT normative that argues otherwise) -- right down to the land rents which rightfully belong to the owner of that home - that _primary residence_.


Claims entirely lacking supportive facts or logic.  As usual.



> Your normative, of course. Your idea of what SHOULD never (not "can never") be considered private property.


Because it inherently violates rights.



> My normative is in contrast to you both where primary residences are concerned.  I don't care if it's a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, an average home on a residential street, or a shack on a hilly acre in the Black Hills with single-wide and cars cinder-blocks in the front and backyard -- homes are sacred to me


I.e., you have no reasons, just emotions.



> - no power to tax, zero power to destroy,


Please explain how taxing land would destroy it.

Thought not.



> nobody wrongfully deprived of anything in the process.


Landowning inherently wrongfully deprives people of their liberty.  You know this.



> AND -- with all the privileged entities wanting into the market, NO NEED FOR REVENUE sourced from a basic human survival need.


The UIE takes care of the basic human survival need.



> I love Thomas Paine, and don't give two $#@!s about his view on ground rent for land


You want contradictions to be possible.  But they aren't.



> -- but ONLY as it applies to what I feel SHOULD BE the sovereignty of every individual in his or her home.  Until that distinction is made, LVT is just another potential for widespread abuse and unintended consequences in the making.


Nothing but emotion.



> Nothing more than a union between the state and the highest bidders on any and all lands - with their attitude that granny and her "unproductive hands" can go take a powder - she doesn't have rights,


You again choose to spew stupid, filthy lies.  She has exactly the same rights as anyone, which get her free, secure access to enough good land to live on.



> and no expectation for security in her home -


Another stupid lie.  Her home is a product of labor and therefore rightly private property.  The fact that the market may make it too expensive for her to pay for what she is taking from others does not mean she is not secure in her home.  She has lots of happy alternatives: rent sleeping space to a roomer; rent out part of the land for gardens, RV parking, etc.; rent space to a neighbor for a business like a home daycare; etc.



> - only a _possible_ promise of exemptions or dividends from what is presumed to be privilege on hers and everyone's part.


It's not just a "possible promise."  It's an inherent implication of adhering consistently to the first principles LVT is based on.

----------


## Roy L

> And everyone else is a liar ... a big fat liar. LOL.


There is no other way to rationalize evil, sorry.

----------


## Roy L

> I don't care if you spent 800,000$ to make some product, it can be worthless to me (price ergo ZERO), or it could be worth 5,000,000$ to me.


Neither number is a price until it trades for that amount.



> I bet you think if X Company puts a sticker on their products of 5,000$ and not one ever sells that you think the price of the good is 5,000. /shakes head/


That is certainly a very common misapprehension.

But I bet you think if X would give $5,000 for a good and no one ever sells him one, or he would take $5000 for a good and no one ever offers him that much, then the value of the good is $5,000. /shakes head/

----------


## redbluepill

> It's apropos. Their disagreements to me are like watching scraps between the left and right wing of the same party.


You have got to be kidding me. Georgists and socialists agree that the status quo was inherently unfair. That is pretty much where the similarities end.  Socialists want government control/regulation over markets, taxes on just about everything, and government ownership of major industries. Georgists want a free market, the elimination of taxes on labor and capital and replace them with the LVT. I understand you being confused. It took a while for Georgist theory to sink in for me as well. Thanks to our statist school system we think its only capitalists vs communists. There is no alternative to the two ideas. You're either one or the other.

Would be a wonder how such a political party could hold together!

With your logic I guess Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and William F. Buckley Jr. are now officially socialists. Most of the real socialists HATED Henry George.

To be fair, there were a handful of socialists who admired Henry George. These people included Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, and George Bernard Shaw.

So how to explain George's appeal to both the political right and  left? The truth is Georgism is neither capitalist nor socialist. It doesn't belong to any particular school of thought. Some socialists liked Georgism for its attention to economic justice. Some capitalists like it for the fact that it saw socialism as inefficient and promotes a free market.

So I stand by my statement that you are being dishonest in your equating Georgism with socialism. You have been through enough debates with us to know better.










> I did read what they said. But I'm not a 19th century classical liberal,


Libertarianism is built on the foundation of classical liberalism. Unfortunately, modern libertarianism post-Nock has been perverted.




> and I just don't happen to agree with those who advocated land in common and ground rents paid by everyone, regardless of status, to the state as a solution, any more than I agree with the problem I think they misidentified.


Because they're all pinko commies!





> No, that's where common sense trumps the hair-splitting definition torturing semantics I refuse to play along with.


 Common sense would tell you that Thomas Paine was not thinking of the state running the land when he wrote Agrarian Justice.




> I could have said "collectivize/socialize ground rents",


Actually Frank Chodorov said "socialize the ground rent" yet he was a strong individualist. Did he want the government to own and control all property? Of course not. He simply wanted the landlord to return what belongs to the individuals of the community.





> and I could differentiate, like EW would like, between titles and ownership - but that would be intellectually dishonest, a steaming pile of dung by any other name.


Never was intellectually dishonest about titles and ownership. One could "own" land just as people at one time could "own" slaves. But whether that ownership is just is the question.




> The mechanics and the net effect is all I care about, and will leave disingenuous wordsmiths to their self-deceptive jerk circle. That's their great gobs of lumpy fun.


Like when they call Georgists socialists or communists. Yup.





> The extent to which an entity has the power to charge rent for a thing, regardless of the rationale, motive, or what you label it, is the extent to which that entity assumes OWNERSHIP over that thing.


The rationale does indeed matter. If a court orders a man to pay another man restitution (lets say he damaged the second man's mailbox with his car and refused to pay for the damages), does that mean the government owns the first man's money? Think about it. Your notion is proposterous.





> And when that OWNERSHIP EFFECT is total, as appropriated by the state, that OWNERSHIP OF THAT THING is collectivized. No dip-$#@!ty hair-splitty mental masturbation about possession or title, or the rationale or motives behind it, will mitigate the core essence of the fact that it is "collectivized land".


Except the landowner can do whatever he wants with the land. Still a long way from collectivized.

"We propose to disturb no just right of property. We are defenders and upholders of the sacred right of property  that right of property which justly attaches to everything that is produced by labor; that right which gives to all people a just right of property in what they have produced" ~ Henry George, Thou Shalt Not Steal
http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/George_TSNS.html





> No, I don't - I agreed with his usage of the word common as it related to INDIVIDUAL rights that happened to be "common" (equal and inherent to EACH - not a collectivized ALL).


Georgists are talking about individual rights when they speak of common rights. But you twist our words to mean rights granted by a government. Why don't you do the same for the classical liberals who used the same words and also called for ground rent?

"Freedom of speech is perhaps the best contemporary example of a common right, because it is still recognized, even among socialists, as an individual right."
http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html




> So there's no use in playing the fallacy of composition card, as if my agreement with one thing said by a man implies acceptance of everything stated by that same man. Locke was just a human and flawed like you, me and everyone else.


And I certainly don't agree with everything Locke or other classical liberals said either. But his proviso is directly related to how he viewed our rights to nature.




> Wrong. They seek to encourage and violate Locke's Proviso with impunity, by the selling of Violation Indulgences to the highest bidders,  while treating EVERYONE, from the poorest to the richest (and ESPECIALLY the poorest) as if they were all nothing but bidders for privilege - the very speculators (et al) who had acted beyond their rights (Locke's Proviso) and as a matter of privilege.


False. But you're not the first to bring this up...

"Q7. If a man owns a city lot with a $5000 building on it, what, under the single tax, would hinder another man, perhaps with hostile intent, from bidding a higher tax than the first man was able to pay, and thus ousting him from his building?

A. The question rests upon a misapprehension of method. The single tax is not a method of nationalizing land and renting it out to the highest bidder. It is a method of taxation. And it would not only hinder, it would prevent the unjust ousting of another from his building. The single tax falls upon land-owners in proportion to the unimproved value of their land; and this value is determined by the real estate market  by the demands of the whole community  and not by arbitrary bids. No one could oust a man from his building by bidding more for the land on which it stood than the occupier was paying; the single tax would not be increased in any case unless the land upon which it fell was in so much greater demand that the owner could let it for a higher rent. ... read the book"
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/...rstandings.htm





> There is nothing about LVT or proposals of its proponents that make a fundamental, principled (non-economic) distinction between residential, agricultural or commercial property, and yet the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL. Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced. Individuals. Private primary residences. They are all treated as "equal violators" of Locke's Proviso, and without regard for the fact that the average landowner/homeowner with a single residence and a patch of green front and back is not part of that mix, has violated nobody's rights, and caused no violation of Locke's Proviso to begin with.


Study after study has shown that most homeowners pay less under an LVT than under regular property taxes. Couple that with the elimination of all other taxes and the homeowners and poor old widows you claim to care about will be unburdened.

"Failure to adequately tax land speculators and monopolists is a big reason why taxes are so high on the rest of us. It is not just that we pay more because they pay so little; idle landholding is one of the main reasons why government is so expensive in the first place. It contributes to sprawl, blight, spiralling housing costs, loss of business and general economic decline. Residential speculation can be even worse, as it can destroy struggling neighborhoods."

http://www.savingcommunities.org/iss...derlyscam.html




> homes are a basic requirement for life itself


And Georgists seek to end taxes on homes.






> Yes, just as a supreme dictator CAN be benevolent, just as he CAN be brutal and oppressive. With enough vision and integrity, and human wisdom and benevolence, every single political regime on Earth CAN work swimmingly well for everyone. So what? First principles first - and a taxing mechanism or spending intention is not a first principle.


Blah blah blah.

I guess I can give up on my dream of decentralized government. No point when even the freedom-loving politician I vote for can revert to a brutal dictator. *rolls eyes*






> Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp ::: You weren't stupid enough to think that any general ideology or "movement" was an homogeneous blend of purely common thought and absolute agreement, were you?


And they're all socialists in your mind aren't they?





> No, they encourage it, in fact. Come one, come all, the more the merrier, fight/compete amongst yourselves, and take as much of the available land as you'd like. It doesn't matter to a Georgist who possesses the land; whether it's a single Super-rich entity or many not-so-rich, as it's all just revenue to the taxing jurisdiction. May the highest bidder win, the state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered.


Already proven wrong above.





> Oh, are you back in an 18th-19th century mindset with regard to land, without a critical modern questioning thought, or are you specifically referring to AGRICULTURAL land? Because we have evolved. We're not an agrarian farming economy any more. I'm talking about primary residences -- HOMES -- setting aside even the now relatively scarce "family farms" for the moment. The basic primary need involved in these cases has NOTHING to do with soil fertility, and indeed most residential land gets NONE of its value from the fertility of the underlying soil. So much for that.


Its called an analogy. In reality location plays the biggest role in land values. Look at the prices in the cities. Obviously you missed the point, which is that land is not all equal in value.




> I guess you weren't paying attention, then, as this is the one area where I happen to agree, in theory and principle, with Locke. It doesn't matter to me whether it's speculators or the state causing opportunities for LANDOWNERSHIP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT to be withheld from free and natural persons, in violation of Locke's Proviso. I said earlier that not all rights are absolute. Your right to free speech does not extend to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, or yelling into someone's ear through an amplifier at 130 decibels. So I would not consider it unreasonable for the people, the state, to distinguish between land that is owned as a matter of right or merely possessed as a matter of privilege. And that privileged status could very well extend to: secondary residential land, land that of any kind that is possessed by foreigners, corporations and other privileged entities, land that is merely held but not developed, for the sole purpose of withholding, etc.,.


Already addressed homeowners above.

And you ignore the fact that the LVT is in fact voluntary.

"Land value taxes need not even be strictly mandatory. If you as a landholder decline to return to our community the ground rent you appropriate from us, then we could simply disconnect you from our wires and pipes, and while youre in arrears we could publish your name, address, and photo as someone whose property and person are excluded from the protections of our LVT-financed police and courts. If we catch you using any of our streets, parks, or other LVT-financed public goods, then you would owe the arrears on your parcel's land value tax, per the terms of the no-trespassing signs prominently marking those public goods."

http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/0...and-value.html




> However, until the sharp distinction is made, as matter of first principles, between those acting as a matter of right and those acting as a matter of privilege, I see LVT as just one more revenue stream, one more taxing scheme, and one more means of abuse (even abuse from the tyranny of the majority) with only the most tenuous of checks and balances.


Or one could view it as a path to reducing/eliminating other taxes, freeing up land so ALL could use it, and cutting down on bloated government. I happen to agree with Nock, Henry George was the capitalist's best friend.




> I did ignore it, because I don't agree with it.


Then you are the one who is misrepresenting him, not Dan Sullivan.





> Whether the Georgist interpretation matches with Locke or not, any land that is lived on as a primary residence is "being cultivated" in my mind, with a human crop, and rightfully considered property (my normative, in stark opposition to the Georgist/LVT normative that argues otherwise) -- right down to the land rents which rightfully belong to the owner of that home - that primary residence.


The crop, the improvements, the fruits of labor. What can be traced back to an original creator is property. Land is clearly separate from that. It has no creator but nature or God (whatever your beliefs are). But I know you're going to refuse to see the difference.





> Your normative, of course. Your idea of what SHOULD never (not "can never") be considered private property. My normative is in contrast to you both where primary residences are concerned. I don't care if it's a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, an average home on a residential street, or a shack on a hilly acre in the Black Hills with single-wide and cars cinder-blocks in the front and backyard -- homes are sacred to me


And to me. Homes (as in houses and other improvements) are untaxed under a Georgist system.




> no power to tax, zero power to destroy, nobody wrongfully deprived of anything in the process. AND -- with all the privileged entities wanting into the market, NO NEED FOR REVENUE sourced from a basic human survival need.


Nobody is being deprived of any rights under an LVT. Land ownership is NOT a basic human survival need. That notion is a joke.




> I love Thomas Paine, and don't give two $#@!s about his view on ground rent for land --


Too bad. There's a lot of wisdom to that statement.

----------


## redbluepill

> Here are homes that people were evicted from by private organizations because they could not pay their debts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are shanty towns in the USA. Populated by people who were evicted because they could not pay debts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fred Harrison, Mason Gaffney, and Fred Foldvary. Three economists speaking the truth about the economy while Paul Krugman gets all the attention.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You have got to be kidding me. Georgists and socialists agree that the status quo was inherently unfair. That is pretty much where the similarities end.  Socialists want government control/regulation over markets, taxes on just about everything, and government ownership of major industries. Georgists want a free market, the elimination of taxes on labor and capital and replace them with the LVT. I understand you being confused. It took a while for Georgist theory to sink in for me as well. Thanks to our statist school system we think its only capitalists vs communists. There is no alternative to the two ideas. You're either one or the other.


_"George's blend of radicalism and conservatism can puzzle one, until it is seen as a reconciliation of the two. The system is internally consistent, but defies conventional stereotypes."_
- Professor Mason Gaffney (US economist)

The right-wing conditioning, you see it here, is that of winner takes all. If you remotely talk about economic justice and "common wealth", their conditioning spouts lefty, pinkie commie, etc, etc.  Geoism is apolitical. They can't see that and think it a political movement.  The sad part is that none of them recognize that the economic system we have is defective, and want to continue as before. 




> To be fair, there were a handful of socialists who admired Henry George. These people included Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, and George Bernard Shaw.


George distanced himself from Socialists. Many say that was the downfall, as aligning with a socialist movement, which were taking off in the late 1800s, would have promoted the Single Tax and got it in. But, simple working men could readily understand taxing the rich more to implement socialist policies, which they would benefit from, to even out wealth distribution.  Many could not get their heads around the Single Tax, so naturally leaned towards socialism. 

Socialism was better equipped to rally support among the working classes, with the state taking on the role of supporting the poor by taxing the rich.  Adopting Geonomics would have been supervising the economy in which everyone would have the opportunity to provide for their own needs.

The British socialist Labour party and Liberal party at times wanted to implement LVT and had it on the agenda. The Liberals near got it through.

Geoism is apolitical but it needs a political movement to implement it. Political isms have adopted it, but Geoism hasn't adopted a political ism.




> So how to explain George's appeal to both the political right and  left? The truth is Georgism is neither capitalist nor socialist. It doesn't belong to any particular school of thought. Some socialists liked Georgism for its attention to economic justice. Some capitalists like it for the fact that it saw socialism as inefficient and promotes a free market.


Many of the extreme right liked the idea of no Income Tax and rolling back the state. Socialists clearly liked the idea of economic justice and more money in workers pay packets and rolling back land speculators.

Everyone was a winner.

Henry George said "I have never advocated nor asked for special rights or special sympathy for working men.  What I stand for is the equal rights of all men."

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Actually Frank Chodorov said "socialize the ground rent" yet he was a strong individualist. Did he want the government to own and control all property? Of course not. He simply wanted the landlord to return what belongs to the individuals of the community.


That begs the question, "what belongs to *the individuals* of the community". And which individuals? What return?  That is where hive-minded collectivists lose all critical thought and screw the pooch, because their focus is on the value of land rents owed to "the community", without respect or distinction of individuals and their individual rights, except as they define and qualify them. This stems from the socialistic "hive mentality" presumption that anything that benefits "the community" must automatically benefit each of the individuals therein. 

Likewise, your characterization of _socialized ground rents_ as an analogue to a government merely settling damage disputes between private individuals: 




> If a court orders a man to pay another man restitution (lets say he damaged the second man's mailbox with his car and refused to pay for the damages), does that mean the government owns the first man's money?


Again the same question is begged, with circular geoist logic, under the prior assumption that damage was in fact done for which restitution is now owed.  That is a primary Georgist tenet, a plank of geoism regardless how it is called, but it is NOT universal. Think about it. Your notion is preposterous, as it places a taxing mechanism as a *first order requirement*, with the concepts of "productivity and benefit to the community" ABOVE HUMAN LIFE.    

One of the realities facing all humans is their own mortality, and the energy they must consume and expend as individuals in order to survive - to say that they even exist. It is positively demonic when humans take advantage of this fact as rationale for adding their own ARTIFICIAL requirements to individuals on top of the natural God-given requirements, as if that was also _just a basic requirement of life_.

*SHELTER is an absolute requirement for every human individual on Earth.* Likewise land, or the surface required beneath every shelter, given that we can't all live as nomads, orbit in space or live on the ocean, or in mobile RV's. To that purpose and to that end (of housing and supporting life) access to and security in land is an _absolute inalienable right_ of each individual. You see that as _ a qualified privilege of possession based on productivity or benefit returned to the community_.

That is where LVT social engineers come across in my mind as clueless, unwitting sociopaths, because they view _all landownership_ - and especially _primary residential land_ - through the narrow lens of a "commercial investment", rather than a personal investment for individual consumption, survival & well being in their pursuit of life and happiness.  They don't have this in mind, because it has nothing to do with their zealous drive to create "the perfect tax".  

Many LVT proponents recognize this absolute requirement for "survival" element, but see this as a function of their own economic utilitarian sensibilities; like zoo-keepers contemplating the minimum space requirements for a particular animal to survive, which then can then be prescribed to every individual as a "universal value exemption".   

Many LVT proponents include some form of "universal exemption" or "dividend" for individuals.  But it's NEVER AS A FIRST PRINCIPLE AND NEVER AS A MATTER OF INALIENABLE RIGHT. It only comes, when and if it does, as a proposal or incidental possibility; an afterthought or bone thrown to the masses, entirely incidental and secondary to their FIRST PRINCIPLE - which isn't about establishing and guaranteeing land rights or absolute security in land to individuals, but rather guaranteeing LAND RENTS to the taxing jurisdiction - regardless how those funds are allocated.  

Nevertheless, under LVT anyone whose wealth or productivity does not keep pace with land value tax requirements is naturally swept aside. The "universal individual exemption" (IF GIVEN, for whatever "value amount") provides the floor to which the "unproductive" may fall, even as the tax itself provides the mechanism that will naturally force them there. BY DESIGN. They're either compressed into cracker boxes in the inner parts of the city, to keep proximity with job opportunities, or they're swept aside to the outskirts.  Wherever land is valued least, that's where the "unproductive" go. 

None of that is even necessary. There are always those who will act as a matter of privilege, seeing land only as a commercial investment.  There will NEVER be a shortage of those entities, foreign and domestic, public and private. Thus, for the sake of geoist's precious LVT, there should be no artificial requirement for life to be "productive" where primary residential land is concerned.  Those who are living on land with NO thought of its commercial value (and ONLY IF RENTED OR SOLD) should be ENTIRELY UNAFFECTED by _the covetousness of others_. 




> Never was intellectually dishonest about titles and ownership. One could "own" land just as people at one time could "own" slaves. But whether that ownership is just is the question.


Not that you'll listen, but the incessant comparison of landownership (ANY LANDOWNERSHIP) with slave ownership is another area where geoists royally screw the pooch, and come off as certifiable moonbats.  I hope you keep that analogy alive and well, personally, as it's a great tool for political LVT suicide. You're your own troll! Likewise, make Roy your leader and primary spokesman, PLEASE!  He's LVT poison, true people/cause-repellent, for all the unwitting damage he does to his own precious cause.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/0...and-value.html


I like this from above:

'For illiquid landholders, taxes could accumulate as a lien against the property, capped at its market value, so nobody need ever be taxed off the land they hold.' that has the potential to answer the 'little old lady in a big house' objection.

----------


## EcoWarrier

This by Mark braund is good:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...v/30/economics

"Henry George was no socialist, but he was a radical progressive who came as close as any economist before or since to identifying what it is about the market system that makes poverty inevitable. He believed the economic basis for minority wealth and privilege was incompatible with wider social justice, and argued for fundamental economic reform so that everyone at least had a fair chance to provide for themselves and their families.

George's solution was to collect the wealth that accumulates in land values and use it to fund the proper activities of the state. Such a land value tax eventually made it onto the statute books in Labour chancellor Philip Snowden's 1931 budget, but was never implemented because the social fallout from the great depression demanded a more immediate political response. The redistribution of wealth through the taxation of wages and profits, and ultimately the establishment of the welfare state, would instead become the cornerstones of progressive policies to tackle the failings of the market system."

----------


## Danan

> I see.  So, one can own people, numbers, letters of the alphabet, the earth's atmosphere, the sun, _everything_?
> 
> Give your silly head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall out.


I was obviously saying that you own your land like you own everything else you own nowadays.

Everything comes down to what you define as property. For me land is private property and other people's bodies are not. For you land is not ownable and I don't know where you stand on slavery since your view on the former subject is completely odd too, to me.

But when those in charge agreed on the position that slaves are not "people" and can be property they were treated exactly like property. Of course I do believe that every human being is a person and owns his own body and thefore slavery is disgusting.

But that example proves my point. Not whether or not something takes physicle labor to transform it into something with utility for other human beings decides if it is a good. Because if that were the case the 18th century slave owners could have argued that it took them real work to get all those people from Africa, ship them to America and make them "slaves".

What constitutes whether or not something is considered as property is only the beliefsystem of the general public. Once the beliefsystem regarding slaves changed it wasn't possible to own human beings anylonger all over the world. And slave owners couldn't enforce their claim on any person because no judge would agree with them anylonger.

Maybe in a few hundred years people looking back at us will be disgusted by the fact that we "own" (intelligent) animals. Maybe dolphins and apes will be considered "persons" then too, who knows. But today it's perfectly fine to own them. And it's not because we violate a universal philosophical truth today about what is right, it's because morality is subject of change.

What I basically want to say is that your view that only things transformed by human labor can be property is not a self-evident position. If you have a good claim on something, it is generally agreed on and you can defend your claim then it is considered your property at that time.

As libertarians we want a society with clear property rights. Only when property rights are clearly defined our philosophy (the non aggression principle) can work without any form of coercion. To me LVT is just a clever try to avoid the "problem" that taxation couldn't exist in such a society and every transaction had to be voluntarly. With LVT there could still be all forms of government spending since the "community" that creates the value from the land "nature" created has a "right" to collect taxes on it.

I don't buy that. "There's no such thing as society." What group of people constitutes that community that gave the land it's value? The people in my town? The people in my district/state/country? There is no good reason to exclude some people and include others on who has a right to benefit from the land and who doesn't.

Oh and how would it violate the principles of the LVT-theory if we would get rid of all taxes and install a LVT high enough to spend for everything the government is doing right now? I can't think of a logically sound reason that these taxes should be low. There is nothing in this theory that would ensure at least smaller government (let alone the preferable option of no government, which is impossible by definition under this theory). But that should be the whole point of every change aspire. In this concept the size of government is once again only determined by public discourse and through rule of majority (of people living in an arbitrarly bordered location).


And I also don't belief in national sovereignty so that's a mood point anyway. I belief in individual sovereignty.


I could also come up with a clumsy theory on why cars, homes, gold or any other good is in one way or another totally different from all other goods and can therefore not be owned (which has ultimately nothing to do with it). But I'd much rather focus on how to get rid of government than to give it new power.

----------


## kahless

> The claim was not that an elderly widow might get thrown out of her home -- private landlords throw elderly widows out of their homes all the time, and evil anti-LVT liars see nothing wrong with that at all -- but rather that her home would be STOLEN by property tax authorities, and she would be put out into the street.  I await a single documented case where that has EVER happened.
> 
> I await your documented case of an elderly widow's home being STOLEN and she being put out into the street by property tax authorities.  One documented case.  One.
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to provide it.  But you haven't.  And I don't think you will, either.


Still spewing your garbage.  There is an entire market based on tax foreclosures, thousands upon thousands of cases, just check you county website you will find plenty.  I know plenty of people whom this has happened to personally.  I have even sat in on several of the county property tax auctions.  I am living in a county that is in the top 5 highest property tax in the US, everyone who has not lost their home is scared of losing their home due to this.

What started out 10 to 20 years ago as property taxes between $1000 to $1500 is now anywhere between 8k to 18k in my county.  This effects everyone, including being passed on to the renters and the raising the cost of goods at businesses in my community.

People like you disgust me, that you come in these forums and spew your lies about something that is seriously harming so many lives.   You then keep posting denying something that is so common.  It is not just making people homeless, evictions sometimes result in violence against those who refuse to leave the homes they paid for at the hands of government criminals you continue to defend.  

Your posts advocating this kind of violence are vile and sickening to any one that wants to live free .  You advocate forced submission to your authoritarian violent government.

----------


## Roy L

> Still spewing your garbage.


That is a lie.  Stop lying.



> There is an entire market based on tax foreclosures, thousands upon thousands of cases, just check you county website you will find plenty.


Thank you for agreeing that the claim of property tax authorities "stealing" widows' homes and "putting them out into the street" was nothing but a stupid, evil lie.



> I know plenty of people whom this has happened to personally.


No, you don't, stop lying.



> I have even sat in on several of the county property tax auctions.


Please post the documented evidence that the property tax authorities STOLE some elderly widow's house and put her out into the street.



> I am living in a county that is in the top 5 highest property tax in the US, everyone who has not lost their home is scared of losing their home due to this.


Lie.



> What started out 10 to 20 years ago as property taxes between $1000 to $1500 is now anywhere between 8k to 18k in my county.


Please post documented evidence for that claim, which is laughable.



> This effects everyone, including being passed on to the renters and the raising the cost of goods at businesses in my community.


Nope.  Flat wrong.  The kind of property value increase you are talking about is a result of land value increasing, and taxes on land value can't be passed on to renters.  And it is not the high land value that causes prices to be high.  It is the fact that vendors can sell goods for high prices in that location that makes the land value high.



> People like you disgust me, that you come in these forums and spew your lies about something that is seriously harming so many lives.


It is refusal to know the relevant facts that is seriously harming so many lives.  It is low property tax rates that result in people losing their homes, as Prop 13 proved in CA, not high property tax rates.

Why do you refuse to know the fact that the number of people losing their homes in CA in the last five years is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER than the number who were losing them before Prop 13 reduced property taxes and kept pushing them lower and lower?

Why do you refuse to know the fact that because property tax rates are so low, private mortgage lenders are dispossessing ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more homeowners than property tax authorities? 



> You then keep posting denying something that is so common.


I still await the documented evidence of property tax authorities *stealing* an elderly widow's home and *putting her out into the street*.  Just one case.  One.



> It is not just making people homeless, evictions sometimes result in violence against those who refuse to leave the homes they paid for


Documented evidence that these incidents of violence are due to property tax seizures and not mortgage foreclosures....?

Thought not.



> at the hands of government criminals you continue to defend.


Oh, stop lying.  They aren't criminals.  They are supervising liquidation of an asset to satisfy a legal debt.



> Your posts advocating this kind of violence are vile and sickening to any one that wants to live free.


You can't live free when you have to pay a landowner for permission to live.



> You advocate forced submission to your authoritarian violent government.


You've posted nothing but stupid, evil lies.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What started out 10 to 20 years ago as property taxes between $1000 to $1500 is now anywhere between 8k to 18k in my county.  This effects everyone, including being passed on to the renters and the raising the cost of goods at businesses in my community.


Homes are being foreclosed every day. Roy asked for evidence of one because of non-payment of Property Tax.  No one came up with one.  It is laughable that Old Widow was brought of of the closet as a last ditch to justify the unjustifiable.  Winston Churchill would laugh this off as the "Old Widow Bogey".

You clearly missed it. With LVT, as taxes on "land" are raised, other taxes are lowered, or eliminated. Taxes on the buildings and improvements on the land are eliminated. LVT as the Single Tax means no one pays any Income or Sales Tax. In Hong Kong they lowered Income and Corporation Tax substantially to make the place a world economic powerhouse.  Look at real life examples.  They could raise the tax on land high enough to eliminate at least Income Tax, which they really should. 

These existing property taxes.  How much in percentage is on the land? How much is on the buildings?  The land under the house is LAND (and its resources) and the buildings are CAPITAL. Paying taxes on the building is as stupid as paying tax on your dishwasher (CAPITAL) each year.

Property tax only on the *LAND* and rated by its *value* makes a hell of a lot of sense.  Then it is LAND tax not a property tax.  It is the only fair way.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Homes are being foreclosed every day. Roy asked for evidence of one because of non-payment of Property Tax.


That isn't what Roy asked for at all. Were you not paying any attention at all?  Anyone here can produce examples of homes that were sold at auction for a tax lien filed for non-payment of property taxes.  Roy specifically asked for people to come up with a single documented case where a house was *STOLEN* (the operative word) by tax authorities.   That was his lame attempt to drive the point home that a tax lien sale is based on a "legitimate" debt, and therefore not "theft" on anyone's part.

----------


## EcoWarrier

*The Queen Could not be Told the Truth*

When the Queen of England visited the London School of Economics in 2008, she asked a simple question about the looming economic disaster, _"why did no one notice it coming?"_.  Professor Garicano replied, _"at every stage everyone was relying on someone else, and all thought they were doing the right thing"_.  As modern economists use a collection of mangled economics the Queen could not be told the truth.

*Economists 100 Years Ago Colluded to Distort Economics*

A century ago a group of influential economists: John Bates Clark, Frank Knight, Francis Walker, Edward Seligan and Richard Ely, colluded to manipulate the building blocks of classical economics. They had an ideological agenda.  The future they shaped is our reality. Their mission was clear, to protect the vital interests of the privileged few. To do so they had to conceal the unique qualities of the classical factors of production -* LAND*. The three factor of production are: LAND, CAPITAL and LABOR. _These people merged LAND into CAPITAL_, renaming economics neo-classical. This move dangerously distorted the economic system we all run by.

A century of economic disasters followed, with two world-wide crashes, that literally messed with our lives.  Economics has been a tool for contorting our collective consciousness. The current economic crisis is an example to the pathetic state to which economics has been reduced.

*Modern Economists are Confused*

We handsomely reward economists to fine tune to the economy to keep it stable. When boom turns to bust they escape into mysticism. They claim, _"occasional slow downs are natural and necessary features of a market economy"_.  The people we trust to keep the economy on an even keel have no idea what makes an economy explode. Take the central bankers, they pontificated, moving interest rates up and down and manipulating the money supply.  They didn't know what they were doing - it was all an illusion. 

The problem lies in some of the theories invented by economists. They do not reflect the real world. They are fictions invented to explain an imaginary market economy.  When the economy overheats the imaginary equations turn out to be useless.

*Economists Admit Their Economic Models Do Not Work*

The Daddy of all central bankers was Alan Greenspan, of the US Federal Reserve. He said, _"the models do not forecast recession because the parameters are dominated by what happens in normal times when the economy is growing_". 

As the economy crumbled, He said to the US congress, _"I discovered a flaw in the model which I perceived as a critical function structure which defines how the world works. I was shocked"_.  Greenspan's victims are more than shocked, they are traumatized losing their homes and jobs. 

In failing to raise the warning flags, Greenspan was not alone, economists at the Bank of England also failed to forecast the end of the business cycle. They confessed their economic models break down when the going gets tough. Rachel Lomax, deputy governor of the Bank of England confessed, _"When it comes to quantifying the changes in credit conditions, our workhorse economic models still cannot help us very much"_.

If you were caught by surprise when the bottom fell out of the credit market, don't worry, you were in good company. Leading economists at places like the London School of Economics were also shocked. Professor Sir Charles Woodhart, served on the Bank of England monetary policy committee, he now admits that standard forecast economic models are _"effectively pretty useless"_.

Here is an example of the nonsense that can be produced by economic theory. According to the British governments Property Valuation office in Jan 2008, land values will continue to rise until 2013.  Six months later the economy had broken down.  The graph has been erased from their web site. 

*Land Speculators Are the Biggest Gainers*

Who gains from this intellectual mess?  One groups of people reap spectacular rewards, property developers, land speculators all reap windfall gains from one asset that sustains us all, _LAND_.  

In the good times when people go mad buying and selling properties, we lionise these developers. Yet all they doing is cashing in the on the land values others create. Take the case of a cluster of apartments adjacent to a prime brown field site. Their presence gives value to the adjacent site, yet the thousands of residents of the apartments will not share in the increased values they help create.

*Banks Fuelled The Property/Land Bubble*

Bankers around the world played their part in the economic crisis pumping up credit to fuel the property bubble.  As land values rose bankers even created more money.  This was a self inflated bubble of hot air. It had to burst.

*Economists Who Know The Answers Are Supressed*

For the past century economist have messed with our minds.  All is not lost.  A few economists have been stewards of the precious knowledge of how the economy works. The Nobel prize winning economist Bill Vickry and the Californian professor, Mason Gaffney. All voices of reason that have been suppressed. 

*We Need To Force Through Change To Eliminate Vested Interests*

With all the global crisis's converging, mass unemployment, poverty, terrorism. It is time to make up our minds and stop playing the game that was rigged 100 years ago. If we do not challenge the vested interests that exploit people, all of us, the environment and future generations will pay the ultimate price. We have to oblige our elected leaders to deal with the realities on the ground. 

In the end it is up to everyone to assume personal responsibility and restore common sense in the way we govern society.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That isn't what Roy asked for at all. Were you not paying any attention at all?


Your selective amnesia has set in again. You should get it sported. Roy wrote *"I await your documented case of an elderly widow's home being STOLEN and she being put out into the street by property tax authorities."*

----------


## robert9712000

I find it hard to believe a person claiming to be libertarian would support a property Tax since it contradicts the basic concept of the belief of what Libertarianism is.

libertarian  (ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən)

— n
1. 	a *believer in freedom of thought, expression*, etc
2. 	philosophy  Compare determinism a believer in the doctrine of free will

— adj
3. 	of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian 

The reason Property ownership is so important is because believing that you have the right to express yourself however you want has a couple of restrictions thus needing the necessity of out right ownership to be able to completely express yourself how you want.

 The 2 Restrictions on Libertarianism are..

1. You dont have the right to hurt another person
2. Similar to the first,your freedom of expression is limited if it denys someone else there ability to freely express themselves.

To be able to freely express and do what you want without hurting another person or denying them there freedom to do what they want , means you need a space that is yours only of which you may express yourself and not hinder another person,thus leads to the only solution which is land ownership.

 As soon as you introduce property tax you provide a means of denying someone the ability to do what they want.If they have paid off there property and want to live completely self sufficient they can't because property tax means they always need a source of income and can never truly be independent of society if they so chose.

 Then you have the situation where elderly people who are too old to work can lose there home because there retirement payments arent enough to pay there property tax and they are then forced out of there house

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I find it hard to believe a person claiming to be libertarian would support a property Tax since it contradicts the basic concept of the belief of what Libertarianism is.


A tax on the property, the CAPITAL, the building, is against Libertarians...and wrong. Taxing your house is like taxing your dishwasher. A tax on the land values is not a tax, it is reclaiming community created wealth. Not capturing this community created wealth leaves someone to free-load.

No one can live truly be independent of society, unless you are Robinson Crusoe. Those who want to live isolated within a community and pay nothing for what they receive are free-loaders.

Say a plot of land was bought for $100 many years ago. A House was built on it. The land and house is sold and the land value is $100,000. This should go to the community who created that value and wealth locked into the land, otherwise the land occupier is free-loading. Equally when someone dies the value in the land should be given back to the community. Of course the value in the CAPITAL, the building, the community does not want to know.

Or...easier, reclaim the value in the land each year via Land Valuation Tax (the word tax is a misnomer).  Then we cane eliminate taxes on a person's production and purchases - which are 100% against freedom.  He keeps all his wages. Much easier.




> Then you have the situation where elderly people who are too old to work can lose there home because there retirement payments arent enough to pay there property tax and they are then forced out of there house


Laughable.  The old Widow bogey as Winston Churchill called it.  The misinformed, greedy, self-centered or just plain free-loaders, always wheel her out.  Keep 'em rollin'.

Your definitions of libertarian did not state you have the liberty to free-load.

----------


## robert9712000

> A tax on the property, the CAPITAL, the building, is against Libertarians...and wrong. A tax on the land values is not a tax, it is reclaiming community created wealth. Not capturing this community created wealth leaves someone to free-load.
> 
> No one can live truly be independent of society, unless you are Robinson Crusoe. Those who want to live isolated within a community and pay nothing for what they receive are free-loaders.
> 
> Say a plot of land was bought for $100 many years ago. A House was built on it. The land and house is sold and the land value is $100,000. This should go to the community who created that value and wealth locked into the land, otherwise the land occupier is free-loading. Equally when someone dies the value in the land should be given back to the community. Of course the value in the CAPITAL, the building, the community does not want to know.
> 
> Or...easier, reclaim the value in the land each year via Land Valuation Tax (the word tax is a misnomer).  Then we cane eliminate taxes on a person's production and purchases - which are 100% against freedom.  He keeps all his wages. Much easier.
> 
> 
> ...


If someone bought and paid for the land ,how are they a free loader? 

 I do not owe society money simply because i exist or because i use roads or other services. i pay for those through sales and income tax.

 Your also misunderstanding what is value.The main reason land once worth 100 is now 100000 isnt because the community made it worth more, but because of inflation through the devaluation of the dollar.You need to look at purchasing power if you want to assign value to something or determine if something has gained value.

----------


## kahless

The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.  One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.  

Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system. 

I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person.   A single Communist on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If someone bought and paid for the land ,how are they a free loader?


The landowners did not create the increased value in the land - economic community activity did that. They created the economic growth.

Land Value Taxation *does not* tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth, pubic & private, soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values - *that is where land values come from*. This is economics, not an opinion. Land Value Tax merely *reclaims* that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized by the landowner. The landowner is free-loader. It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT *reclaims* community created wealth to pay for community services. 

Inflation is nothing to do with it. Car lose value.Buildings on land lose value - both are CAPITAL.  

Understand the above.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.


That is free-loading - appropriating community created wealth for private gain. 
Believe me I am not Roy. 

I like Commie allegations. Terrific!  When defeated cal them a Commie. Hilarious.

----------


## robert9712000

> The landowners did not create the increased value in the land - community activity did that.
> 
> Land Value Taxation *does not* tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth, pubic & private, soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values - *that is where land values come from*. This is economics, not an opinion. Land Value Tax merely *reclaims* that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized by the landowner. The landowner is free-loader. It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT *reclaims* community created wealth to pay for community services. 
> 
> Inflation is nothing to do with it. *Car lose value.Buildings on land lose value* - both are CAPITAL.  
> 
> Understand the above.


They lose value because they deteriorate over time and become worthless.Land doesn't deteriorate like a car or house,so like other commodities its increase in price is only changed by supply and demand and inflation.

Like i said ,base a items value or increase of on purchasing power not its current market price.

----------


## priest_of_syrinx

> Good on ND. I'd move there if it wasn't such a $#@!ty place to live. Hopefully they pass it and more states have a look once it's proven a success.


Hey! I love ND!! 

But I don't love that Measure 2 failed.

----------


## kahless

> That is free-loading - appropriating community created wealth. Believe me I am not Roy.


Scenario 1:

I purchase property and own it outright, I maintain it and am not using any government services.  If I decide I want security (what you call police protection) then I chose whether or not to pay for that service.  Fire and EMS is volunteer and they are funded by donations in which I contribute.   I live in a private community where we maintain and service our roads.

This is not free loading.

Scenario 2:

I live in a town where the city holds a monopoly on services to property owners.  Property owners are forced to pay to the government monopoly for these services through property taxes.  In this scenario if I refuse then maybe you have an argument that it is free loading.  However the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly in providing services to land owners.

Property owners should be able to chose whom provides such services.  If you do not believe all taxation is theft then the tax burden for services should be distributed evenly to all citizens since all are using these services rather then a heavy property tax burden on a limited number of property owners.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Scenario 1:
> 
> I purchase property and own it outright, I maintain it and am not using any government services.


You buy title to the land which is a set of right.  The state owns the land. That is how it is.




> If I decide I want security (what you call police protection) then I chose whether or not to pay for that service.  Fire and EMS is volunteer and they are funded by donations in which I contribute.   I live in a private community where we maintain and service our roads.
> 
> This is not free loading.


You do not chose if you want police or fire, etc. It is given by the community. You do not pay for the police by throwing money into buckets in Main St?  The land you have, title is granted by the state. The land gains in value which the landowner did not create. Appropriating that value is free-loading.




> I live in a town where the city holds a monopoly on services to property owners.


They do anyhow.




> Property owners are forced to pay to the government monopoly for these services through property taxes. In this scenario if I refuse then maybe you have an argument that it is free loading.  However the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly in providing services to land owners.


You are repaying waelth created by someone else. This wealth is used to provide service to all. 




> Property owners should be able to chose whom provides such services.


I can't believe this. You want to chose which police force protects you?

----------


## EcoWarrier

An enterprising, productive man goes to a realtors office in a town wanting to build a factory, so needs some land for the factory. 

The agent says: "I have the ideal plot". She takes him 45 minutes out of town via a fast highway, 30 minutes down a small road, 10 minutes across track and points to the land surrounded by scrub. "There it is", she states, "$5,000".He said: "there is nothing here. No electricity, roads, water, buildings, people, nothing".She says "I have another the size you want." They drive back to town. 
The plot is in town near to:
A rapid-transit rail station,A fast road with modern tramcars on it,Bus routes,A housing estateGreat schools,A world renowned hospital,Excellent university,Police station - Crime is low because of the excellent well funded police force,Fire House - the fire department is top rated and swift to emergencies,All utility services are adjacent to the plot, etc.A pool of high skills - skills base of the people is very high,
She says: "it has all the top class services you need here".He says: "ideal, wonderful, who do I make the $5,000 out to?".She says: "it is $1,005,000, as it has all the top class services".He said: "It is the same size as the first plot. But mmm, well OK, I'll pay that, as it is ideal, who are the people, and their addresses, I send the cheques to who provide these wonderful top-class service?".She says: "no you have to pay the $1,005,000 to a man who lives near the beach in the Florida and lays on it most of the day".He says: "well its the same size as the out of town $5,000 plot, so I will send him $5,000 and cheques to those who provide the top-class services".She says: "no all has to go to the landowner laying on the beach in Florida".He says: "how do these people pay to provide all these services then?"She says: "well you pay Property Tax, Income Tax, Sales Tax on the goods you sell, tax to the council and government and all sorts of other fees and taxes, and they provide the services".He replies: "well I pay for these services twice then, that doesn't sound fair at all".She says: "well yes, you pay once to the landowning man laying on the beach in Florida and again to the authorities. He does not pay taxes on this plot as it is not used".

Land Valuation Tax (LVT) on the urban plot would pay for the services. The value is higher on the urban plot than the out of town plot which will pay less LVT as its value is less because of the lack of demand because of no services.

The winner is the free-loading landowner who got rich in his sleep and laying on the beach, who paid sweet nothing for the services that made his land valuable. *The man of enterprise and production is paying twice.*

Next time you buy land or a house, think of that. It is not an American thing to pay twice for something.

----------


## Roy L

> That isn't what Roy asked for at all. Were you not paying any attention at all?  Anyone here can produce examples of homes that were sold at auction for a tax lien filed for non-payment of property taxes.  Roy specifically asked for people to come up with a single documented case where a house was *STOLEN* (the operative word) by tax authorities.   That was his lame attempt to drive the point home that a tax lien sale is based on a "legitimate" debt, and therefore not "theft" on anyone's part.


No, there is also the equally important fact that a tax lien sale only recovers the debt owing.  Any surplus is returned to the property owner, as with mortgage repossessions.  And given the fact that property taxes are typically less than 1% of value, that's often a large sum of money -- unless the owner hasn't been paying for a very long time, and hasn't had the brains to figure out they need to scale back their consumption of community-provided benefits.  Calling it "stealing" the old widow's home is therefore nothing but a stupid lie.

----------


## Dianne

> The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.  One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.  
> 
> Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system. 
> 
> 
> I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person.   A single Communist on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.


Is there such a place in the US?

----------


## Roy L

> Land doesn't deteriorate like a car or house,so like other commodities its increase in price is only changed by supply and demand and inflation.


No.  Unlike the supply of commodities, the supply of land is fixed, so it acts like a collectible: price is detemined solely by demand.  In real terms, the price of virtually every commodity is far lower than it was 100 years ago because production is so much higher.  Gold and oil are about the only two that have held their real value.  But the real value of land is far higher than it was 100 years ago, because supply is fixed.  That's why the land market is always inherently a monopoly market.




> Like i said ,base a items value or increase of on purchasing power not its current market price.


Indecipherable.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> They lose value because they deteriorate over time and become worthless.Land doesn't deteriorate like a car or house,so like other commodities its increase in price is only changed by supply and demand and inflation.
> 
> Like i said ,base a items value or increase of on purchasing power not its current market price.


Land is ineleastic. If the president said there will only be one million cars in the USA and no more made, and only parts made for them. The prices of cars will rise by the year because the supply is inelastic - like LAND. But now, as many cars can be made that sell so the price drops as they deteriorate.

Land prices also rise because of the economic benefit the location gives. 

You can take cheap LABOR from Alabama to NYC
You can take cheap CAPITAL (say cars) from Alabama to NYC
You cannot take cheap LAND from Alabama to NYC

Land is different to anything you can ever buy. The price reacts differently to anything you can ever buy.

----------


## Roy L

> If someone bought and paid for the land ,how are they a free loader?


They paid the wrong party, like someone who pays a slave's earnings to his owner.

If someone bought and paid for a slave, how are they a freeloader?

The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that if you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while if you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights.  When all the land is owned as private property, it's no different from all the people being owned as slaves, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in places where government does not make provision to rescue them from the enslavement inherent in removal of their rights to liberty by landowning, like Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, or Bangladesh. 



> I do not owe society money simply because i exist or because i use roads or other services.


You owe the community for what you take from others by owning the land: their liberty to access and use the advantages government, the community and nature provide at that location.



> i pay for those through sales and income tax.


No, you don't.  There is no relation between your sales and income tax payments and the amount of deprivation you impose on others.  That is very much the point.  Sales and income taxes are just ways of forcing producers and consumers to give welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners.



> Your also misunderstanding what is value.The main reason land once worth 100 is now 100000 isnt because the community made it worth more, but because of inflation through the devaluation of the dollar.


Flat false.  You are just proving your total ignorance of the relevant facts.  The real (inflation-adjusted) value of a given plot of land is many times higher than it was 100 years ago, unlike the real value of commodities, which is almost always far less than 100 years ago.  US$ wages have increased about 100-fold in the last 100 years.  US land value has increased about 10,000-fold.



> You need to look at purchasing power if you want to assign value to something or determine if something has gained value.


Right.  _You_ do.

----------


## Roy L

> I find it hard to believe a person claiming to be libertarian would support a property Tax since it contradicts the basic concept of the belief of what Libertarianism is.


No, it only contradicts the propertarian or feudal "libertarian" belief that people's rights are determined by how much property they own:

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html



> libertarian  (ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən)
> 
>  n
> 1. 	a *believer in freedom of thought, expression*, etc


And movement.  So please explain how Friday's freedom is preserved by Crusoe, who has "homesteaded" the island, pointing a musket at him, and telling him to either get to work or get back in the water.

Thought not.



> 2. 	philosophy  Compare determinism a believer in the doctrine of free will


That's not the relevant sense.



> The reason Property ownership is so important is because believing that you have the right to express yourself however you want has a couple of restrictions thus needing the necessity of out right ownership to be able to completely express yourself how you want.


Rightful property ownership of the fruits of one's labor is indeed crucial to liberty.  But land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and therefore can never rightly have become anyone's property.

You will now say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that indisputable fact of objective physical reality.



> The 2 Restrictions on Libertarianism are..
> 
> 1. You dont have the right to hurt another person
> 2. Similar to the first,your freedom of expression is limited if it denys someone else there ability to freely express themselves.


Right.  Owning land indisputably hurts other people and deprives them of their liberty to express themselves -- liberty they would indisputably otherwise have enjoyed, if the landowner did not forcibly remove it.



> To be able to freely express and do what you want without hurting another person or denying them there freedom to do what they want , means you need a space that is yours only of which you may express yourself and not hinder another person,thus leads to the only solution which is land ownership.


Lie.  Our ancestors for millions of years were free, and they never owned land.  Owning land INHERENTLY hinders other people's free expression of their liberty.  The only time owning land means anything at all is when it violates others' rights.



> As soon as you introduce property tax you provide a means of denying someone the ability to do what they want.


Wrong.  As soon as you introduce property in land you automatically deny people the ability to do what they want.



> If they have paid off there property and want to live completely self sufficient they can't because property tax means they always need a source of income and can never truly be independent of society if they so chose.


That's why a universal individual exemption analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption is needed, and fully answers your objection.



> Then you have the situation where elderly people who are too old to work can lose there home because there retirement payments arent enough to pay there property tax and they are then forced out of there house


Nope.  They would have their individual exemptions, and they would be able to rent out bedroom space to roomers, or rent RV parking or garden space to neighbors, etc. to recoup any additional tax owning.  That's the beauty of taxing land value: it's always automatically affordable.  Just let a more productive user use the land, and collect the rent from them.  And if in some bizarre, exceptional case none of the above was possibly, they could always just accept a tax lien on the property to be satisfied when the owner finally left for the retirement home, or died.

----------


## Roy L

> The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.


Right: RIGHTFUL property in the fruits of one's labor.



> One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.


See the example of Crusoe and Friday.  Is Crusoe not self-evidently violating Friday's rights by forcing him to either work for Crusoe's benefit or get back in the water?  How are you going to prevent yourself from knowing that fact?



> Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier


Why even bother telling such stupid, transparent lies?



> cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system.


Another idiotic lie.  Slavery is compelled labor.  It is landowning that compels people to labor for the benefit of landowners or die, not paying a tax on what you take from others.



> I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person.


I've seen such stupid claims before.



> A single Communist


I've also seen that stupid claim before.



> on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.


We are all about liberty and justice: I, Eco, Redbluepill, and a few others here who understand the economics and morality of land and taxation.  You just don't see what we see, so you scream that it isn't there.  But it is:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/catsup.htm

And like the cat in the picture, once you see it, you can't NOT see it.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> No, there is also the equally important fact that a tax lien sale only recovers the debt owing.  Any surplus is returned to the property owner...


Your "equally important fact" is a lie, a myth, not true in North Dakota and many other states, where if your house/land is foreclosed on, confiscated and sold at auction for failure to pay taxes, the tax lien sale is through a county deed, which is the equivalent of a quit claim deed.  By statutory decree the chain of title is broken by the issuance of that deed (_indeed a deed of theft_), as the original owner *forfeits/loses/is-robbed-of all of his interest in the property, including his equity*. The tax deed is then sold (to anyone EXCEPT the original owner) to recover the unpaid taxes and other fees, with no provision for returning any surplus balance to the original owner, which also belongs to and is absorbed by the county, state or other political subdivision by virtue of the Tax Deed.

N.D.C.C. 57-28-08. Effect of failure to satisfy tax lien. (excerpt)
The failure of the owner, any mortgagee, or other lienholder to satisfy the tax lien before the date of foreclosure shall:
1. *Pass any interest of the owner, mortgagee, or lienholder in the property to the county*...

57-28-09. Tax deed to be issued.(excerpt)
After the date of foreclosure for property with an unsatisfied tax lien, the county auditor shall issue a tax deed to the county or...to that political subdivision. *The tax deed passes the property in fee to the county, the state, or political subdivision, free from all encumbrances* except (things which don't apply to the original owner).

So calling it "stealing" is pretty much calling it what it is - unless you're of the mindset that the state is incapable of theft.

----------


## kahless

> I like Commie allegations. Terrific! When defeated cal them a Commie. Hilarious.


You do not believe in private property ownership.  You and RoyL continue debate from a position of defending Communist polices.  A common tactic of Communists to evangelize and gain power is to debate from a position denying their polices are Communist.




> You buy title to the land which is a set of right.  The state owns the land. That is how it is.


#1 plank of the Communist Manifesto: "Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. "




> You do not chose if you want police or fire, etc. It is given by the community. You do not pay for the police by throwing money into buckets in Main St?  The land you have, title is granted by the state.


You believe that a government monopoly can only provide services.  You attack the very foundation of free enterprise and private property ownership.  
Again debating from a position denying an individuals right to outright own private property.  




> The land gains in value which the landowner did not create.


Which should have nothing to do with government.




> Appropriating that value is free-loading.


Your belief is this is free-loading from the people since property belongs to everyone.  Again debating from a position from the plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto. "Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes."




> I can't believe this. You want to chose which police force protects you?


In a free society I should have that right rather than be forced to pay for a service I do not want or need. This especially if I am homesteading out in the sticks in a very small community.  I would rather pay a security firm or use a volunteer service like we do with EMS and Fire.

----------


## Roy L

> I purchase property and own it outright,


Land cannot rightly be property; but in any case, you knew when you purchased it that the title was conditional on keeping the taxes current.  Why pretend you did not?  Just to lie for the sake of lying?



> I maintain it


Land does not need maintenance, as it is by definition as nature made it.



> and am not using any government services.


But you are depriving others of a location from which to access those services.  See the example of the man taking the bread from the store and throwing it away.  Do you really claim he does not have to pay for it?  REALLY???!?



> If I decide I want security (what you call police protection) then I chose whether or not to pay for that service.  Fire and EMS is volunteer and they are funded by donations in which I contribute.   I live in a private community where we maintain and service our roads.


Which nevertheless wouldn't do you much good if they did not connect to the public roads.



> This is not free loading.


Yes, in fact, it is, as proved by the fact that "your" land would be worth much less if not for the surrounding community/society and its government-provided services and infrastructure.



> I live in a town where the city holds a monopoly on services to property owners.  Property owners are forced to pay to the government monopoly for these services through property taxes.  In this scenario if I refuse then maybe you have an argument that it is free loading.  However the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly in providing services to land owners.


You do not understand what government is: the sovereign authority over a certain area of land.



> Property owners should be able to chose whom provides such services.


Silliness (and laughable grammar: "whom" is the objective case).  Choosing who provides services only makes sense when competition is meaningful and appropriate.



> If you do not believe all taxation is theft then the tax burden for services should be distributed evenly to all citizens since all are using these services rather then a heavy property tax burden on a limited number of property owners.


Pure idiocy.  The notion that the government gives as much benefit to the homeless as to landowners is so outrageously false and dishonest that it cannot be ascribed to innocent error.  It is deliberate lying.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France

See the example of free food from government, available only at a privately owned location.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Land cannot rightly be property;


Land can be property. Your operative slippery word is "rightly" - your normative - your "should", one that is based on a moral tenet of your tax religion, or rationale for LVT.  




> ...but in any case, you knew when you purchased it that the title was conditional on keeping the taxes current.


Which brings us to _our normative_: it is this way now, but "should not" be this way in our opinion.  See how that works, Roy? We both want the status quo to change -- you in the direction of denying landownership without condition to free and natural persons, and us in the exact opposite direction.    




> You do not understand what government is: the sovereign authority over a certain area of land.


You're the one who lacks understanding and wisdom here, as you don't understand the origin of that so-called sovereignty - the origin of its meaning and purpose. 

From the Constitution of the State of North Dakota:

We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution. (which constitution then goes onto establish that State)

ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; *acquiring, possessing and protecting property* _(which includes land in North Dakota)_ and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;
and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
Section 2. *All political power is inherent in the people.* Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require.




> The notion that the government gives as much benefit to the homeless as to landowners is so outrageously false and dishonest that it cannot be ascribed to innocent error. It is deliberate lying.


There is nothing inherent in a Land Value Tax that changes that, since in itself it is nothing more than an ad valorem tax levied on the value of unimproved land, and a tax collection, not spending, mechanism.  To imply otherwise is deliberately deceitful.

----------


## osan

> A tax on the land values is not a tax, it is reclaiming community created wealth. Not capturing this community created wealth leaves someone to free-load.


Loath as I am to feed the troll, regarding the initial statement, I challenge you to substantiate it.  I challenge you to provide a formal presentation and proof of its validity and truth. Care to belly up?

As to the second part, you provide no definitions, leaving the sentence in a state of essential meaninglessness.




> No one can live truly be independent of society,


First of all, that is nonsense.  Granted, living completely independently is very tough, but it is indeed possible.  There are abundant examples of this throughout human history.  You, therefore, fail.




> Those who want to live isolated within a community and pay nothing for what they receive are free-loaders.


And your abilities in reasoning leave everything to be desired.  Your contention presupposes some sort of a duty to the "community" that you have failed to explicitly announce and demonstrate.  Further down the rabbit hole of presupposition is the notion of "community" as an entity in and of itself that possesses innate qualities above and beyond those of the individuals that make it up.  One of the tacit presuppositions that skulks in the shadows of all of this is the vague implication that a "community" somehow possesses rights and that those rights are by some unpublished means superior to those of said individuals.  I will once again challenge you to put up or shut up on these unsubstantiated presumptions.  "Community" is nothing more than a concept.  A group of humans living in some proximity to one another may comport themselves in ways consistent with the concept or they may not.  If people are FREE, they are free to partake of community and to do so in the manner and degree THEY choose.  To suggest that a concept (community) that exists NOWHERE in space and time, save within the confines of the skulls of individuals, somehow possesses rights, which is to say claims of title, to the lives and products of living, tangible human beings will prove quite the task for you to demonstrate. I wholeheartedly challenge and encourage you to do this.  If what you assert is in fact true, you should have no troubles demonstrating this in a manner that will refract the wilting force of my method of analytical demolition.

So you have a laundry list here:  

1. Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world that is more than simply the presence of a conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.

2. Demonstrate that such an extant entity as "community" possesses _fundamental_ and _inalienable_ rights including a tract on whence they source.

3. Demonstrate that such community rights are superior to to those of the individuals making up the community.

4. Based on such demonstrations of points 1-3 above, demonstrate how the community holds title to the lives, properties, and products of its constituent members.

5. How does the community make its decisions regarding the actions it exercises over the rights of the individual members, particularly where there is an absence of unanimity in a given instance?

6. Does not the body of decision makers constitute a community within the community?  If so, does that sub-community hold rights above and beyond those of the larger set?  If so. whence do those superior rights issue and why should we believe them valid?

I could go on a bit further, but will stop here mainly because I am 99.9%(bar) certain you will never get past point 1.  Point 2 will absolutely nail the lid shut on your argument's coffin and I need not give the rest the merest thought.  But I nevertheless fully encourage you to give it your best shot.  If you fail to take up the challenge I will consider it a default capitulation and concession that everything you have propounded here is false and thereby unsupportable with fact, reason, and truth.

I ignore the rest of your sad and silly diatribe as it doesn't even rate as good as what I would expect from a ill-informed sixth-grader.

The gauntlet is on the table.  The only question remaining is whether you have the nerve.

----------


## Roy L

> Your "equally important fact" is a lie,


LOL!  Says the guy who has been caught in more lies than Carter has pills...



> a myth, not true in North Dakota and many other states,


Even if it is not true in ND (and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say) or some other state (and just which "many other" states have the same system?), it is certainly true *generally*, so to call it a lie or myth merely confirms your grotesque and invariable dishonesty.

And in any case, even if that _is_ the law in ND (which does surprise me), then that was a condition of the original issuance of the title deed, like the payments needed to keep a car you bought on credit, not a "theft" arbitrarily imposed later.



> By statutory decree the chain of title is broken by the issuance of that deed (_indeed a deed of theft_),


Nonsense, as proved above.



> So calling it "stealing" is pretty much calling it what it is - unless you're of the mindset that the state is incapable of theft.


Garbage.  The owner knew -- or should have known -- the conditions under which the title was issued in the first place, and had _years_ in which to satisfy her debt by selling the house and moving into accommodation better suited to her needs and means.  Calling it "stealing" is therefore still a lie.

----------


## Steven Douglas

::: wiggle-nonsense snipped :::




> ...and just which "many other" states have the same system?


More than half:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington.




> The owner knew -- or should have known -- the conditions under which the title was issued in the first place, and had years in which to satisfy her debt by selling the house and moving into accommodation better suited to her needs and means. Calling it "stealing" is therefore still a lie.


By that same logic, the current system that does not "reclaim community created wealth" (via LVT) does not constitute a "theft" of ground rents on the parts of landowners, so you can stop making that claim.

----------


## Roy L

> You do not believe in private property ownership.


You are lying.



> You and RoyL continue debate from a position of defending Communist polices.


Lie.



> A common tactic of Communists to evangelize and gain power is to debate from a position denying their polices are Communist.


LOL!  So anything anyone says is Communist, unless they say it is Communist...?

ROTFL!



> #1 plank of the Communist Manifesto: "Abolition of private property


Wrong.  It says private property *IN LAND*.



> and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. "


Yes, well, communists also think 1+1=2.  Does that mean it's false?

Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto calls for elimination of child factory labor.  Are you saying children should work in factories?  It also calls for free public education.  Are you saying there should be no free public education?

The Communist Manifesto would never have been so successful if all the planks were wrong.



> You believe that a government monopoly can only provide services.


No, we merely observe that some services are natural public monopolies, as the private market can't invest efficiently in them.



> You attack the very foundation of free enterprise and private property ownership.


False.  We are trying to *restore* free enterprise and *valid* private property ownership from the unjust and liberty-destroying system of landowner privilege.



> Again debating from a position denying an individuals right to outright own private property.


Lie.  We have stated repeatedly that we fully support private property in products of labor and indeed are unalterably opposed to their taxation either as income or sales.



> Which should have nothing to do with government.


They cannot be separated from government.  It is impossible, as the Henry George Theorem proves.



> Your belief is this is free-loading from the people since property belongs to everyone.


No, because LAND belongs to NO one.



> Again debating from a position from the plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto. "Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes."


It says "private property in land," not "private property" -- but the Communist Manifesto does state elsewhere that communism is abolition of private property simpliciter, which we have consistently opposed.



> In a free society I should have that right rather than be forced to pay for a service I do not want or need.


<sigh>  Should the guy who takes bread he *does not want or need* from the supermarket and throws it in the river not have to pay for it?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.



> This especially if I am homesteading out in the sticks in a very small community.  I would rather pay a security firm or use a volunteer service like we do with EMS and Fire.


In fact, with your individual exemption, you would be paying no LVT in any case.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Seems to boil down to one thing. Anything which disagrees with RoyL is a lie. Even if it is really a fact.

----------


## Roy L

> Loath as I am to feed the troll, regarding the initial statement, I challenge you to substantiate it.  I challenge you to provide a formal presentation and proof of its validity and truth. Care to belly up?


Silliness.  Formal proof is for math and formal logic.



> As to the second part, you provide no definitions, leaving the sentence in a state of essential meaninglessness.


Garbage.  People communicate just fine without redefining everything with every sentence.  Honest people, that is...



> First of all, that is nonsense.  Granted, living completely independently is very tough, but it is indeed possible.  There are abundant examples of this throughout human history.  You, therefore, fail.


An individual past childhood may be able to survive alone, but he still needed help to get to that point.  And even if an individual can survive alone, humanity cannot exist without society.

You, therefore, FAIL.  You have FAILED.  You will continue to FAIL.  You are a FAILURE.



> Your contention presupposes some sort of a duty to the "community" that you have failed to explicitly announce and demonstrate.


We have demonstrated conclusively that the landowner forcibly deprives others of their liberty, and therefore owes them just compensation.  We don't have to demonstrate it anew in every post.



> Further down the rabbit hole of presupposition is the notion of "community" as an entity in and of itself that possesses innate qualities above and beyond those of the individuals that make it up.


That concept is self-evident in human existence.  Language, for example, is a quality of community and would be impossible without community.  You know this.  You just have to refuse to know it.



> One of the tacit presuppositions that skulks in the shadows of all of this is the vague implication that a "community" somehow possesses rights and that those rights are by some unpublished means superior to those of said individuals.


No such assumption is made.  The assumption, which is well demonstrated by all history, is that the rights of individuals can neither exist nor be secured and reconciled other than through communal commitment to doing so, usually via government.



> I will once again challenge you to put up or shut up on these unsubstantiated presumptions.


<yawn>



> "Community" is nothing more than a concept.


Such claims are nothing more than idiocy, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.  Language and everything that depends on language *cannot exist* as a mere quality of individuals.



> A group of humans living in some proximity to one another may comport themselves in ways consistent with the concept or they may not.


When have they not?



> If people are FREE, they are free to partake of community and to do so in the manner and degree THEY choose.


Wrong.  If people are free, then others are _not_ free to violate their rights to liberty without making just compensation just because those others might "choose" not to "partake of" community in that "manner and degree."



> To suggest that a concept (community) that exists NOWHERE in space and time, save within the confines of the skulls of individuals,


Stupid garbage, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.



> somehow possesses rights, which is to say claims of title, to the lives and products of living, tangible human beings will prove quite the task for you to demonstrate.


Which might be because that is a stupid strawman fallacy you just made up.



> I wholeheartedly challenge and encourage you to do this.


ROTFL!  I challenge and encourage you to spend a week picking fly $#!+ out of pepper.  It would be about as productive.



> If what you assert is in fact true,


It's not what we assert.  It's nothing but a stupid strawman fallacy you just made up.



> you should have no troubles demonstrating this in a manner that will refract the wilting force of my method of analytical demolition.


BWAHAHAHHAAAAAAHHAHAHHHAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

You are making a prize fool of yourself, dumpling.  Trust me on this one.  I hold a degree in philosophy, with honors, from an internationally respected university.  You, all too obviously, have never had a course in philosophy or logic at any level, and have probably never even held a logic textbook in your hand.



> So you have a laundry list here:  
> 1. Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world that is more than simply the presence of a conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.


Done.



> 2. Demonstrate that such an extant entity as "community" possesses _fundamental_ and _inalienable_ rights including a tract on whence they source.


No need: strawman fallacy.



> 3. Demonstrate that such community rights are superior to to those of the individuals making up the community.


The community is the only way those individuals' rights are going to be secured and reconciled.  There is no other way.



> 4. Based on such demonstrations of points 1-3 above, demonstrate how the community holds title to the lives, properties, and products of its constituent members.


Absurd strawman fallacy.



> 5. How does the community make its decisions regarding the actions it exercises over the rights of the individual members, particularly where there is an absence of unanimity in a given instance?


Finally a question that isn't stupid or dishonest.  That's what democratic institutions are for.



> 6. Does not the body of decision makers constitute a community within the community?


Equivocation fallacy.



> If so, does that sub-community hold rights above and beyond those of the larger set?  If so. whence do those superior rights issue and why should we believe them valid?


Those responsible for securing and reconciling the individual rights of all have authority and (ideally commensurate) responsibility, not additional rights.



> I could go on a bit further, but will stop here mainly because I am 99.9%(bar) certain you will never get past point 1.


Wrong again.



> Point 2 will absolutely nail the lid shut on your argument's coffin and I need not give the rest the merest thought.


You're just begging to be demolished and humiliated.  And I don't mind doing it.



> But I nevertheless fully encourage you to give it your best shot.  If you fail to take up the challenge I will consider it a default capitulation and concession that everything you have propounded here is false and thereby unsupportable with fact, reason, and truth.


You wouldn't know fact, reason, truth, or especially logic if they bit you on the goolies.



> I ignore the rest of your sad and silly diatribe as it doesn't even rate as good as what I would expect from a ill-informed sixth-grader.


No, you ignore it because you can't refute or, more likely, even understand it.



> The gauntlet is on the table.  The only question remaining is whether you have the nerve.


<WHACK!!>

And I really advise you to learn something from the drubbing I just gave you before you presume to dispute with me again.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You do not believe in private property ownership.


I do.  I do not believe that common wealth is appropriated by private individuals or organizations.  I also do not believe that private wealth is stolen by the state - it is right now. 




> You and RoyL continue debate from a position of defending Communist polices.


You would not know what a Communist policy is as long as you have hole in your rear end. 

< snip the rest >

----------


## Steven Douglas

> <sigh>  Should the guy who takes bread he *does not want or need* from the supermarket and throws it in the river not have to pay for it?


<long mock sigh> 

Earth to dishonest question-beggar(sic) : your analogue with regard to the state being a "rental supermarket" for land is blithering question begging on your part, as _the very issue being discussed_, in a normative sense for all concerned, is *whether or not the state should even be such a monopoly supermarket for land-for-land-rents in the first place*.  Your question is yet another disingenuous attempt to gloss over the original question at hand, as if it had indeed been settled, from a premise that implies that a) the state is already such a supermarket, as it b) reclaims something you believe belongs to an entity called "the community".  

On the latter point, why didn't you give an actual meaningful response to osan's well written thoughts and subsequent challenge on precisely that subject: 




> Your contention presupposes some sort of a duty to the "community" that you have failed to explicitly announce and demonstrate.  Further down the rabbit hole of presupposition is the notion of "community" as an entity in and of itself that possesses innate qualities above and beyond those of the individuals that make it up.  
> 
> One of the tacit presuppositions that skulks in the shadows of all of this is the vague implication that a "community" somehow possesses rights and that those rights are by some unpublished means superior to those of said individuals.  I will once again challenge you to put up or shut up on these unsubstantiated presumptions.  
> 
> "Community" is nothing more than a concept.  A group of humans living in some proximity to one another may comport themselves in ways consistent with the concept or they may not.  If people are FREE, they are free to partake of community and to do so in the manner and degree THEY choose.  To suggest that a concept (community) that exists NOWHERE in space and time, save within the confines of the skulls of individuals, somehow possesses rights, which is to say claims of title, to the lives and products of living, tangible human beings will prove quite the task for you to demonstrate. I wholeheartedly challenge and encourage you to do this.  If what you assert is in fact true, you should have no troubles demonstrating this in a manner that will refract the wilting force of my method of analytical demolition.
> 
> So you have a laundry list here:  
> 
> 1. Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world that is more than simply the presence of a conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.
> ...


EDIT: Just read your turing-machine non-response, full of dismissive ROTFL and BWAHAHA, denouncements, argument by ridicule and other nonsense you hope will pass for an argument.  Epic fail, as usual.

----------


## Roy L

> More than half:
> 
> Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington.


Source?

If true, that would certainly explain a lot of the public resentment of property taxes.  I will stipulate that the forfeiture of ownership rights to improvements under property tax seizures in states that use that method is, in fact if not in law, stealing.  It's certainly not consistent with common law property rights.

But I still haven't seen a documented case of a poor old widow being put out into the street.



> By that same logic, the current system that does not "reclaim community created wealth" (via LVT) does not constitute a "theft" of ground rents on the parts of landowners, so you can stop making that claim.


True, it's not legally theft any more than the bandit in the pass is legally stealing once he gets the toll license or land title.  Nevertheless, that is what he is in fact doing, as already proved.

----------


## Roy L

> Seems to boil down to one thing. Anything which disagrees with RoyL is a lie. Even if it is really a fact.


Name one example where I called a fact a lie.  One.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Source?


The internet, my own research and data, all performed with easy searches, right from the horses' official mouths. I already showed you one, and cited the source. I'm not going carry your water for you, as it's far easier for you to falsify my assertion with a random sampling of your own, showing me a single source that is not what I claimed it was. 




> If true, that would certainly explain a lot of the public resentment of property taxes.  I will stipulate that the forfeiture of ownership rights to improvements under property tax seizures in states that use that method is, in fact if not in law, stealing.  It's certainly not consistent with common law property rights.


I agree - we've drifted a long way from common law property rights, and the erosion of those rights continues.  Incidentally, it was only a few years ago that ND lowered the deadline for issuing tax deeds for delinquent property taxes from five years to three years.  Two ND legislators I know and spoke with said that one of their fellow legislators is floating around the idea of a bill that would lower that to one year. 




> By that same logic, the current system that does not "reclaim community created wealth" (via LVT) does not constitute a "theft" of ground rents on the parts of landowners, so you can stop making that claim.
> 			
> 		
> 
> True, it's not legally theft any more than the bandit in the pass is legally stealing once he gets the toll license or land title.  Nevertheless, that is what he is in fact doing, as already proved.


And that goes to the heart of moral versus legal.  It was legal to own people as property at one time. The fact that moral theft of the liberty and labor of real people was not unlawful or illegal, and the fact that it was sanctioned by legislatures and enforceable by courts, did not take away from the fact that it was theft by all other reckoning.  

So when someone uses the word STEALING in a political normative sense, it should be obvious to anyone that they are not referring to it in a legal, but rather what a moral sense, as they view it.  In other words, what "ought" to be considered stealing as a matter of legislation. Likewise, you honestly feel, and argue in earnest, that landownership represents a wrongful deprivation to others, and that a rightful claim of land rents exist that is owed to "the community", or taxing jurisdiction.  Morally you consider the lack of such recovery - the ground rents, or economic advantages enjoyed by landowners - THEFT.  I disagree completely, but I can at least acknowledge that you are arguing in earnest, just as I can obviously see that you are referring to it in a moral sense that you would like codified in the legal sense.  So it would be disingenuous and erroneous of me to say that you "are lying" based on me clinging to legal definitions only.




> Name one example where I called a fact a lie. One.


Oooh, slippery, given that a fact is not, by definition, a lie. 

The logical assumption is that anything you called a lie was truly a lie, and not a fact. I'll give you one glaring example of where that was not the case without looking anything up:  Every time you claimed that someone was lying about "the fact" that they knew something.  In other words, every time you claimed omniscience about other people's knowledge, motives or intentions, and especially when you claim that people are not arguing in earnest, but merely exercising a _"refusal to know indisputable facts of objective reality"_ (as you see them of course, being the lone arbiter of what is fact, what is objective, and what is indisputable). 

It often comes out as, "You are lying. You know this. Of course you do.", when the FACT (about what I knew, which only I could know for sure, given that you are NOT OMNISCIENT) was otherwise.

----------


## Roy L

> The internet, my own research and data, all performed with easy searches, right from the horses' official mouths.


I do not believe you.



> I already showed you one, and cited the source. I'm not going carry your water for you,


IOW, you can't support your claim.  Thought not.



> as it's far easier for you to falsify my assertion with a random sampling of your own, showing me a single source that is not what I claimed it was.


You're right: it WAS easy.  The first one I looked at was Alaska:

_If the proceeds of the sale of tax-foreclosed property exceed the total of unpaid and delinquent taxes, penalty, interest, and costs, the municipality shall provide the former owner of the property written notice advising of the amount of the excess and the manner in which a claim for the balance of the proceeds may be submitted. Notice is sufficient under this subsection if mailed to the former record owner at the last address of record of the former record owner._ Title 29 Alaska Statutes Chapter 45 Section 480.

You are destroyed.

Second one, California:

_"Any proceeds remaining are distributed to the person with title of record prior to the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser, provided the person has filed a claim"_
CA Revenue and Tax Code Par 8517.

Do we really need to go through the rest?  Now I wonder if you are even right about the distribution of excess proceeds in ND.

Remainder of stupid, dishonest garbage snipped.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You're right: it WAS easy.  The first one I looked at was Alaska:
> 
> _“If the proceeds of the sale of tax-foreclosed property exceed the total of unpaid and delinquent taxes, penalty, interest, and costs, the municipality shall provide the former owner of the property written notice advising of the amount of the excess and the manner in which a claim for the balance of the proceeds may be submitted. Notice is sufficient under this subsection if mailed to the former record owner at the last address of record of the former record owner.”_ Title 29 Alaska Statutes Chapter 45 Section 480.
> 
> You are destroyed.
> 
> Second one, California:
> 
> _"Any proceeds remaining are distributed to the person with title of record prior to the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser, provided the person has filed a claim"_
> ...


Hey, Goofy Logic, the question I answered was which states issued Tax Deeds like North Dakota, not that all states were identical in their handling of them -- and both your examples proved that out. And ALL of those states behave similarly in one respect, which goes to the heart of the ramifications of a tax deed.  It means the property is sold with the sole purpose and intent of recovering the value of delinquent taxes plus penalties, interests, court costs and other fees.  _Period._ Out of those states or other political subdivision that do provide A MECHANISM (as in, legal hoops to jump through, it's never automatic) for any surplus return back to the owner, NOT ONE OF THE STATES or political subdivisions behaves as a realtor in trying to get fair market value for the property.  The ONLY interest that is looked after is that of the state. 

From a former owner's perspective there is not that much difference between a state that collects what was owing and simply steals the balance of equity, and a state that collects what was owed in a way that makes no effort to protect the balance of the equity at all, and simply allows that to be a windfall to the new owner who steals the balance. After which the state washes its hands.

As for your "I don't believe you", you must know by now that I don't put much stock in anything you believe or don't believe. I see you as having swallowed a giant, nasty hairball full of convolutions, distortions, delusions and lies, I really don't give a $#@! that you see it as "mirror time", as the Japanese say, or "Pot/kettle", or "I'm rubber and you're glue", or "Takes one to know one", or anything else a child would say as a deflection in retort.

----------


## Roy L

> Hey, Goofy Logic, the question I answered was which states issued Tax Deeds like North Dakota, not that all states were identical in their handling of them -- and both your examples proved that out.


No, you are lying, Steven.  LYING.  The question (post #301) was: 

"(and just which "many other" states have the *same system*?),"

Not "which states issue tax deeds."

Which states have the SAME SYSTEM.

And your answer was a flat-out lie.

As usual.

In fact, it now appears that even ND may return excess proceeds to the former owner.



> And ALL of those states behave similarly in one respect, which goes to the heart of the ramifications of a tax deed.


Lie.  Issuance of a tax deed does NOT go to the heart of the ramifications.  If they return excess proceeds to the former owner, the "stealing" claim immediately goes right back to being a lie.

And I think you know that.



> It means the property is sold with the sole purpose and intent of recovering the value of delinquent taxes plus penalties, interests, court costs and other fees.  _Period._ Out of those states or other political subdivision that do provide A MECHANISM (as in, legal hoops to jump through, it's never automatic)


Of course it's not automatic.  People who have their homes seized for back property taxes almost always owe even more money elsewhere, in addition to the back taxes.  The state gives those other claimants a chance to get their money before the deadbeat takes off with it.



> for any surplus return back to the owner, NOT ONE OF THE STATES or political subdivisions behaves as a realtor in trying to get fair market value for the property.


The state is not a realtor.  Why would it behave as a realtor?



> The ONLY interest that is looked after is that of the state.


So you admit that you flat-out *lied*.  Good.



> From a former owner's perspective there is not that much difference between a state that collects what was owing and simply steals the balance of equity,


Which I now doubt *any* state does.



> and a state that collects what was owed in a way that makes no effort to protect the balance of the equity at all, and simply allows that to be a windfall to the new owner who steals the balance.


Yet _another_ "stealing" lie...?  Tsk, tsk.



> As for your "I don't believe you", you must know by now that I don't put much stock in anything you believe or don't believe.


But I was obviously right not to believe you.

You are so done.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> And I think you know that.


You think I do, huh?  Well, you're softening at any rate.

Now onward, as we meddling kids and our mangy old dog continue to do the work of truth, justice and liberty for all, as we unmask villains and save ordinary hardworking people from the menacing LVT tentacles reaching out to their homes.

----------


## kahless

> <sigh>  Should the guy who takes bread he *does not want or need* from the supermarket and throws it in the river not have to pay for it?
> 
> ANSWER THE QUESTION.


What the hell is that, LOL.  Why would I buy property I do not want and then not pay for it.  You are not making any sense.




> In fact, with your individual exemption, you would be paying no LVT in any case.


No.  Maybe for you depending on your income, the property tax amount and based on the fact that your belief system is all about forced labor in the governments economic system so they could give you back that crumb.

In many areas the individual exemption is not enough.  I am going to use my community as an example and put aside those that will not have an income since they chose not to participate in your forced system, homesteaders that wish to live off the land and trade with others and the sick.  

In my community property tax for the smallest homes are between 8k to 12k (high ranches 12k to 18k) a year and includes school tax which everyone must pay regardless whether you have children or are 80 years old.  The individual exemption would not be enough.  (12 years ago the taxes averaged around $1500 - $3000).

So perhaps our perspectives are different since it seems you cannot fathom this reality where you live.  I know the rates vary from state to state, county to county and some areas offer exemptions for the elderly.  Where I live we do not have that option and your belief system has essentially won the battle here and these rates are the end result.

My county here in NY is heavily dominated by your kind.  The Communist party and Socialist Workers party are typically on the ballot with the same candidates as the Democrat party.  The Republican party is essentially a carbon copy of the Democrat party. 

Despite the amounts they are charging for property tax, my county is almost in a state of bankruptcy since it has grown government so large and providing ridiculous pensions and salaries.  For example Teachers and Police salaries average well over 150k per year with school superintendents total compensation average 300k per year.  Even the guy that mows the lawn for our town building makes 98k per year.  

Nothing goes on here that warrants police needing a salary of over 150k a year.  Government workers retire at 55 and the property tax owner is on the hook for their pensions for life.  Essentially we all are slaves to the government employees and their pensions for life through property taxation.  That is everyone, since the landlords are forced to raise the rent to pay the higher property tax amount.

Meanwhile when a non-government worker retires they can lose their home if they cannot cough up the 8k-12k per year to support these ridiculous salaries and pensions.

Be careful what you wish for RoyL, you might just get it like I have here.  That is unless you are reaping the benefits of enslaving us through property taxes as a government employee.

----------


## Roy L

> What the hell is that, LOL.  Why would I buy property I do not want and then not pay for it.


Because you're a greedy taker?

_ANSWER THE QUESTION._



> No.


Yes.  You are just flat-out lying, just as all anti-LVT smuts inevitably do.



> Maybe for you depending on your income,


LVT is not related to income, and replaces income tax.  You are bloviating.



> the property tax amount and based on the fact that your belief system is all about forced labor in the governments economic system so they could give you back that crumb.


Lie.  My system is the one that DOESN'T force anyone to labor, but DOES ensure they have access to opportunities to labor.



> In many areas the individual exemption is not enough.


It is anywhere off in the boonies where you aren't getting the benefit of government services and infrastructure, which is what YOU claimed (i.e., lied) you wanted to do.



> I am going to use my community as an example and put aside those that will not have an income since they chose not to participate in your forced system, homesteaders that wish to live off the land and trade with others and the sick.


Huh?



> In my community property tax for the smallest homes are between 8k to 12k (high ranches 12k to 18k) a year


No, they aren't.



> and includes school tax which everyone must pay regardless whether you have children or are 80 years old.  The individual exemption would not be enough.


Maybe not, because in your community landowners pocket massive welfare subsidy giveaways courtesy of government services and infrastructure.  That's what land value IS.

Anyway, your community is not somewhere off in the boonies where government services don't give economic advantages to landowners.  I didn't say the exemption was enough to hold a large parcel of valuable land in an urban area.  I said it was enough to hold a modest parcel -- enough to live on -- out where you aren't depriving others of access to advantageous services and infrastructure government provides.

Your greed for unearned wealth, and your dishonesty in rationalizing it, are sickening.



> (12 years ago the taxes averaged around $1500 - $3000).


I repeat: document your claim, or admit you are lying.  Failure to do the former will constitute doing the latter.

And I do not believe you will be doing the former.



> So perhaps our perspectives are different since it seems you cannot fathom this reality where you live.


I am very confident it is not the reality where YOU live.



> Where I live we do not have that option and your belief system has essentially won the battle here


Garbage.  You can't even accurately describe my belief system.  You have to lie about it.



> and these rates are the end result.


If they actually existed, which they don't.



> My county here in NY is heavily dominated by your kind.


There is no one like me in your county, dumpling.



> The Communist party and Socialist Workers party are typically on the ballot with the same candidates as the Democrat party.


Provide the documentation, or admit you are lying.



> The Republican party is essentially a carbon copy of the Democrat party.


Or vice versa.  But that's true anywhere.



> Despite the amounts they are charging for property tax, my county is almost in a state of bankruptcy since it has grown government so large and providing ridiculous pensions and salaries.  For example Teachers and Police salaries average well over 150k per year with school superintendents total compensation average 300k per year.  Even the guy that mows the lawn for our town building makes 98k per year.


Document your claims or admit you are lying.



> Nothing goes on here that warrants police needing a salary of over 150k a year.  Government workers retire at 55 and the property tax owner is on the hook for their pensions for life.


Documentation.



> Essentially we all are slaves to the government employees and their pensions for life through property taxation.  That is everyone, since the landlords are forced to raise the rent to pay the higher property tax amount.


Most of the property tax cannot be passed on to renters.  Try again.



> Meanwhile when a non-government worker retires they can lose their home if they cannot cough up the 8k-12k per year to support these ridiculous salaries and pensions.


Yet people don't seem to be moving out to avoid these horrendous costs.  I wonder why...



> Be careful what you wish for RoyL, you might just get it like I have here.


I have no idea what you have there, as it is certainly not what you have described.



> That is unless you are reaping the benefits of enslaving us through property taxes as a government employee.


I'm not a government employee.

I wonder if you have made a single true statement in this thread to date.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.  One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.  
> 
> Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system. 
> 
> I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person.   A single Communist on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.


 Don't forget the JohnLVT handle

----------


## Roy L

> Don't forget the JohnLVT handle


Rule of thumb: If you can't tell the difference between two posters, you are no more intelligent than the less intelligent of the two.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> My county here in NY is heavily dominated by your kind.  The Communist party and Socialist Workers party


I think people are deliberately spiraling this thread into farce.  Hilarious as they view the world though it is.

They have no case in arguments and when demolished the stock answers of "Commie", "pinko Commie" "Red under the bed", etc all come. They take it to the personal level clearly indicating they have no argument.  What is hilarious in their warped views and accusations of "commie", in that Geoism is based on an unrigged free-market and rolling back the state. Geoism is leaving people alone and not burdening them with taxes having only one tax.  It set them free.

They do not have the intelligence to see another's view and analyze it, merely reciting the "political" indoctrination set into their minds.  They do not have the intelligence to see that Geoism is not a political movement, it is an economic system that fits into any political ism.  This puts a wrench into the machinery of their pre-programed minds. 

They could learn a lot by the Geoist viewpoint and when they understand it they would see it is what they want.  It sets you free.  It give them all they want.  It eliminates free-loaders and puts wealth into the hands on the productive..  It is a shame their minds are not receptive of such such simple, brilliant ideas.  Ideas that have proven to work in practice.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> In my community property tax for the smallest homes are between 8k to 12k (high ranches 12k to 18k) a year and includes school tax which everyone must pay regardless whether you have children or are 80 years old.  The individual exemption would not be enough.  (12 years ago the taxes averaged around $1500 - $3000).


LVT is not the same as the current property taxes. It is quite different.  LVT is an annual levy on all land, used or not used - a levy on the value of the land.  The higher the "land" value the more you pay.  You can move to an internal tax haven by moving to an area with lower land values. 

The property taxes you are on about are a tax on "houses", CAPITAL. It takes into account the price of the whole package of house and land.  Vacant plots of land are not included.  Masses of other land is not included - it could horded and owned by an idle land speculating man laying on the beach in Florida all day who gets rich in his sleep as the values rise.  The property tax predominantly falls onto the house occupier. The occupier may not own the land. 

Taxing the bricks on the land (CAPITAL) is rather dumb.  As dumb as taxing your washing machine each year. 

The Property tax you are castigating falls mainly onto one section which is wrong an taxes mainly the wrong thing, CAPITAL, not LAND.  Tax ALL land an only by the value and see the economy take off.

Geoist do not like the way the current "property taxes" are structured. A part of the land is taxed which is good, but the tax should 100% on the land, and only its value, ehich can move up or down, so an auto tax.  Geoists do not like taxing your house.

Definition:
Property = the CAPITAL on the land (bricks and wood)LAND is not property.  You do not own it, you occupy it. You have title, a set of rights. The state owns the LAND.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> regarding the initial statement, I challenge you to substantiate it.  I challenge you to provide a formal presentation and proof of its validity and truth. Care to belly up?



You haven't read the thread or understood it.

Landowners do not create the increased value in land - economic community activity did that. They created the economic growth.

Land Value Taxation does not tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth, pubic & private, soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values - that is where land values come from. The values did not drop in from the sky.  This is basic economics, not an opinion. 

Land Value Tax merely reclaims that community created economic growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure and services that aided the economic growth creation in the first place.  Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized by the landowner. The landowner is a free-loader. 

It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services. Socially created waelth is socialized to pay for social services.  As a brillant by-product, all community revenue can be raised by reclaiming teh wealth it created from the land-thismean no IncoemTax, Sales Tax, etc, leaving productive men free.

Understand the above.  Read it  number of times.  It is not difficult. The penny will drop - hopefully.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You haven't read the thread or understood it.


Oh, he understood the thread alright, he just didn't buy into your talking points.

I found it ironic, albeit predictable, that the very question you dodged was _immediately begged_ by you, with your usage of the term "economic *community*", to wit:




> Landowners do not create the increased value in land - _economic community_ activity did that. Blah blah blah...Geoist Manifesto Planks...blah blah...


I'd say it was pretty much you who didn't read (his post), let alone understand it, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't simply read, understand, but then deliberately evade). 

Osan specifically challenged your fast and loose usage of the word "community" (which includes your reference to an "economic community").  That's what he challenged you to discuss. But you didn't. You ignored it completely and instead launched right into the usual geoist talking points. Which brings us to a fulfillment of osan's prediction which turned out to be prophetic:




> ...I am 99.9%(bar) certain you will never get past point 1.


In hindsight it would appear that 99.9% certainty was extremely generous on his part, as you didn't even address point 1, let alone get past it.  And what was point 1 again -- the challenge he issued?

1. Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world that is more than simply the presence of a conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Oh, he understood the thread alright, he just didn't buy into your talking points.


Quite the opposite.  He never bought into common sense unable to grasp some basic economics. 

No one has dodged questions.  It is not worth going further in a tit-for-tat with someone who has not got the basics.  No point whatsoever.  Like talking to you.   You at times do see the logic and common sense but as Roy says, you then tell lies. You thought you knew all the answers until others made it clear to you never. 

The basics have been explained, with even simple stories for you all - clearly. Then the indoctrination of your minds total ignores, or some are just not plain bright enough to understand, and the responses are skewed, clearly indicating a lack of common sense grasping simple economics.

Once you understand where the value in land comes from they it is so much easier for you all. The landowner did not create that value.

The example of the London Underground rail extension is given - as it is the only one costed, but the same for all others metros.  The Jubilee line extension in London cost £3.4 billion. The land values around the proposed lines and stations, even before they opened, rose by £14 billion.  Men were digging tunnels in dark and filth, not knowing when the next job was coming, when land owners above got rich in their sleep for doing NOTHING!.  Read Don Riley on that, he conservatively costed the land values increases - he owned an office block that rose in price, he could not understand why, so he looked into why and did the calculations.

The Communities money in building the rail infrastructure was creamed off by landowning free-loaders. The hole in the economic circle needs plugging - LVT does that simply. The increased land value are reclaimed by a higher LVT levy, automatically determined by the land values.

Understand what the many Geoists on this thread are putting across. Geoism empowers the individual. You have only your freedom to gain.

----------


## roho76

Ecowarrior/royl. Why you even here? You're not free market people like the rest of us. Go back to the manifesto.com or wherever you're from. We've tried your ideas and to date, they are a disaster. You're a collectivist and collectivism doesn't work. Collectivism destroys desire and incentive. We don't all have the same goal. Face it. 

RPFer's. Why you arguing with these idiots? With names like royal and Eco (anything) and topics like land ownership and taxes you're bound to have a loosing battle even when you're right.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Ecowarrior/royl. Why you even here? You're not free market people like the rest of us.


Are you having a laugh!!!  Geoism is based on the FREE-MARKET. An unrigged, unmonopolized free-market. The Free-market is one of the key aspects. Geoism leaves the individual alone and does not steal his wages rolling back the involvement of the state. No financial bureaucracy will hover over him. Geoism removes speculation on land and its resources, which distorts the free-market, leaving it free to run.

Geoism sets people free. Geoism is what people reading this forum need. 

You only idiot is you. You do not even know what freedom is.  You support free-loaders not the free-market.

----------


## EcoWarrier

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...d_instead.html

*Property Taxes Are A Barbarous Relic: Tax The Value of Land Instead*
By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012, at 10:32 AM ET

North Dakota voters recently considered taking advantage of their state's newfound oil wealth to eliminate local property taxes, but decided to stick with the status quo. Given the actual choice set on the table that may have been the right decision. But I wish more jurisdictions would think harder about property taxes, which I think are overwhelmingly a barbaric relic of a time when governments faced large logistical constraints in their ability to assess and collect taxes. A property tax is essentially a tax on buildings, and since buildings are the most expensive most important and longest-lasting kind of capital goods we have it winds up being about the most anti-growth form of taxation you can imagine. What's more, it's a tax that has only a hazy relationship to ability to pay which invariably inspires jurisdictions to lard their property tax rules down with all kinds of exemptions and complications.
What you want to do is tax land. I met Rick Rybeck yesterday who sent me this interesting paper (https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/commit...0424150651.pdf) of his on one special case of the issue:


Transportation investments often increase nearby land values. This can choke off development, pushing new growth to cheaper sites remote from these investments. This leapfrogged development creates a demand for infrastructure extension that starts the process over again. Transportation infrastructure, intended to facilitate development, thus chases it away. Resulting sprawl strains the transportation, fiscal, and environmental systems upon which communities rely. Several jurisdictions around the country utilize a value-capture technique embedded in their property tax to help finance infrastructure and motivate affordable compact development. They reduce the tax rate on assessed building values and increase the tax rate on assessed land values. The resulting compact development should facilitate better transportation and accommodate economic growth with reduced fiscal and environmental costs. This techniques ability to foster affordable compact development might help bridge the gap between those who advocate growth boundaries and those who fear the impact of growth boundaries on affordable housing.

This is an excellent point, but I really do think the issue is quite general. If you read this skeptical take on land taxes (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi...enCoughlin.pdf) from Jeffrey P. Cohen and Cletus C. Coughlin (yes, that's a realy person's name) I think you'll see that the case for them is really quite strong. Their first objection is that doing assessments of land value ex structures accurately is difficult. That's true, but doing the theoretically correct tax with some estimation error is much closer to optimal than doing the wrong tax accurately. Their third objection is the ridiculous one that a land tax will redistribute resources away from wealthy landowners, which they correctly note "might be viewed by some as a virtue rather than a fault."

Last they claim that "if a pure land tax were to capture all current and future rent from the landowners, the market value of the land would become zero" leading to widespread abandonment of land. If that were in fact to occur then I think we'd have to cut the tax. But I also think it's wrong. For one thing, land would have consumption value to its owners. But more broadly, I think this is a bit like saying that since the average investor can't beat average stock market returns nobody will ever buy stock. Or that since the expected return on launching a small business is negative there will be no entrepreneurship. The whole economy is propelled forward by a Lake Wobegon effect where, almost by definition, investors and entrepreneurs all think they're above average. High land taxes will make land cheap, but entrepreneurs will want to get their hands on that cheap land in order to undertake their entrepreneurial schemes.
------------------------

_“The property tax is, economically speaking, a
combination of one of the worst taxes—the part
that is assessed on real estate improvements…
[the buildings] and one of the best taxes—the 
tax on land or site value.”_
—William Vickrey (1999),
1996 Nobel Prize laureate in economics.

----------


## redbluepill

> Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system.


Thats laughable. To support one tax (that isn't even a true tax) and be called a communist for it automatically discredits anything you say.





> I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person.   A single Communist on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.


Eco and Roy clearly have different writing styles therefore not the same person.

The LVT movement is very much alive. I see dozens of post made daily on the facebook LVT group page.

----------


## redbluepill

> And movement.  So please explain how Friday's freedom is preserved by Crusoe, who has "homesteaded" the island, pointing a musket at him, and telling him to either get to work or get back in the water.


And for those who haven't read it yet, read this article illustrating the inherent injustice in landownership.

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell...0409/0030.html

----------


## redbluepill

> They have no case in arguments and when demolished the stock answers of "Commie", "pinko Commie" "Red under the bed", etc all come


Those who fail to do the research create the knee-jerk posts calling Georgists/Geolibertarians commies. Once effectively proven wrong they completely disappear from the thread.

----------


## redbluepill

> Ecowarrior/royl. Why you even here?


To enlighten.




> You're not free market people like the rest of us.


False. They are very pro-free market. 

"The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for *George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had.* He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry." Albert J. Nock "Thoughts on Utopia" FREAKIN FREE MARKET LIBERTARIAN.
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Chodorov.html




> Go back to the manifesto.com or wherever you're from.


These are the websites I enjoy. Very pro-free market. Very anti-communist.

http://schalkenbach.org/
http://www.savingcommunities.org/
http://earthfreedom.net/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://www.progress.org/




> We've tried your ideas and to date, they are a disaster.


No you haven't





> You're a collectivist and collectivism doesn't work.


No. Like the classical liberals such as Paine, Jefferson, Chodorov, Nock, and Mill they understand the difference between common property, private property, and collective property.




> Collectivism destroys desire and incentive.


It does. But collectivism does not apply to this discussion.

----------


## kahless

> I think people are deliberately spiraling this thread into farce.  Hilarious as they view the world though it is.
> 
> They have no case in arguments and when demolished the stock answers of "Commie", "pinko Commie" "Red under the bed", etc all come. They take it to the personal level clearly indicating they have no argument.  What is hilarious in their warped views and accusations of "commie"


The 2-3 accounts have consistently debated in several threads against outright individual ownership of private property.  I pointed out these beliefs and propaganda tactics are commonly associated with the more populist Communist ideology.

I never used those terms in your reply nor took it to a personal level.  Yet responses from the two of you have been a personal attack on anyone that responds and claiming we are all liars.  Rather than point out your ideology as Geoism which in my belief is just as bad.

Your remaining personal attack snipped



> ...

----------


## kahless

> Ecowarrior/royl. Why you even here? You're not free market people like the rest of us. Go back to the manifesto.com or wherever you're from. We've tried your ideas and to date, they are a disaster. You're a collectivist and collectivism doesn't work. Collectivism destroys desire and incentive. We don't all have the same goal. Face it. 
> 
> *RPFer's. Why you arguing with these idiots? With names like royal and Eco (anything) and topics like land ownership and taxes you're bound to have a loosing battle even when you're right.*


The mods for some reason are allowing this probably one guy with multiple accounts to use this forum as a platform to promote this ideology which is appearing high in search results.  Do we really want this movement associated with Ron Paul's name, someone has to counter it if the mods are unwilling to do so.

----------


## redbluepill

> The mods for some reason are allowing this probably one guy with multiple accounts to use this forum as a platform to promote this ideology which is appearing high in search results.  Do we really want this movement associated with Ron Paul's name, someone has to counter it if the mods are unwilling to do so.


I don't think Ron Paul wants the movement to include only single-minded goosesteppers. There is nothing wrong with being supportive of the man and his candidacy while not agreeing 100% with his views.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> < non-response snipped >


Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world that is more than simply the presence of a conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.  Until you do that, every reference you make to this nebulous, ever-shifting, non-homogeneous phantom called "community", on behalf of which geolibs presume to speak, is nothing but mindless circular logic.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world


You know nothing of the human race if you think humans only act individually. Humans are social animals.  They group together for self-protection and self-help.

You have this idiotic notion that men can exist 100% apart from society. Unless you are on a desert island that never occurs. Even a 15 year old knows that.

You must get out of derert island la-la land.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The mods for some reason are allowing this probably one guy with multiple accounts to use this forum as a platform to promote this ideology which is appearing high in search results.  Do we really want this movement associated with Ron Paul's name, someone has to counter it if the mods are unwilling to do so.


There are many Geoism here on this forum. You must have noticed.  You want them gone because they demolished the nonsense lurking in your brain.  You resort to wanting them away because they demolished your views.  Geonomics is not an ideology, it is an economic movement. Extreme right-wing like you?  It fits in. Extreme Commie? It fits in. In between? It fits in. 

Open out your mind - you have everything to gain. Everything.

----------


## roho76

Taxes require government. Government requires coercion. Coercion is not free market. No group has the right to tell me what to do. Just because we are social creatures doesn't mean there needs to be a dominant social order. That idea is garbage. If people want to come together voluntarily that's fine but forcing a social order where one is unwelcome breeds resentment and resentment will eventually destroy the whole thing.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The 2-3 accounts have consistently debated in several threads against outright individual ownership of private property.  I pointed out these beliefs and propaganda tactics are commonly associated with the more populist Communist ideology.


Your mental conditioning is surfacing.  No one did any such thing.  You have written this drivel previously and have been told repeatedly that you are wrong. No Geoist said you cannot hold title to land and exchange that title.

BTW, no one owns land in Hong Kong.  The most dynamic free-market economy in the world. 

Open your your closed mind.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You know nothing of the human race if you think humans only act individually.


Nice try at a straw-man evasion, but that was never claimed.  The question was not whether humans could act alone or in concert with others, or even as a group, but whether the material reality of _a particular kind of grouping referred to as "community"_ even exists in the real world except as a nebulous conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Taxes require government. Government requires coercion. Coercion is not free market. No group has the right to tell me what to do. Just because we are social creatures doesn't mean there needs to be a dominant social order. That idea is garbage. If people want to come together voluntarily that's fine but forcing a social order where one is unwelcome breeds resentment and resentment will eventually destroy the whole thing.


No. government requires taxes. How does it work? Geoism requires that the individual's productive labors are not taxed. 
You are saying that there is no such thing as the free-market anywhere because governments collect taxes.  Wow!
Social structures have a social order - it goes with the package.

If you do not like the social order - try a desert isalnd.  Stay away from people andf their natural inclination to group together in a social construct.

You want to free-load from a social group. You want something for nothing. That is the top and bottom of it.

----------


## kahless

> Open out your mind - you have everything to gain. Everything.


Geoism is the antitheses of the individual liberty movement and the beliefs of Ron Paul.  




> Taxes require government. Government requires coercion. Coercion is not free market. No group has the right to tell me what to do. Just because we are social creatures doesn't mean there needs to be a dominant social order. That idea is garbage. If people want to come together voluntarily that's fine but forcing a social order where one is unwelcome breeds resentment and resentment will eventually destroy the whole thing.


^This

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Those who fail to do the research create the knee-jerk posts calling Georgists/Geolibertarians commies. Once effectively proven wrong they completely disappear from the thread.


Noted.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Geoism is the antitheses of the individual liberty movement and the beliefs of Ron Paul.


180 degrees the other way.  Geonomics gives FREEDOM.  And reduces/eliminates free-loaders.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> And for those who haven't read it yet, read this article illustrating the inherent injustice in landownership.
> 
> http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell...0409/0030.html


That link is good.

Robinson Crusoe lands shipwrecked on the desert island.
Man Friday is already there on the beach.

Friday says, "I am all alone and have been here a year". 
He went on, "I have formed a government and a law system and I 
elect myself to all the assemblies and I am the president.
Friday continues, "also I own all the LAND of the island and I will 
charge you rent for being here".

Crusoe, "How much? I do not have money and I cannot leave".

Fridays say, "I spend 4 hours a day running after rabbits, catch one 
and that feeds me for one day.  So, you will work 8 hours and catch 2 
rabbits and give me one as rent, while I lay on the beach"

Crusoe agrees. After 2 months Crusoe uses his initiative and enterprise and gets some pointed stone and a stick and makes some 
CAPITAL, which is man made things, which is a spear."

Crusoe then catches 20 rabbits in a day the capital is so successful.
Crusoe gives one to Friday and keeps 19 rabbits.

Friday sees the benefits that this capital gives, of which he had no 
part in creating, and ups the rent to 19 rabbits a day.

The free-loading landlords alway win and take the lions share for doing 
NOTHING.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Nice try at a straw-man evasion, but that was never claimed.  The question was not whether humans could act alone or in concert with others, or even as a group, but whether the material reality of _a particular kind of grouping referred to as "community"_ even exists in the real world


*Of course it exists!!!! * Are you some sort of nutball?  Are you paid to infest forums?  You have never answered that.

You are clearly a free-loader.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> And for those who haven't read it yet, read this article illustrating the inherent injustice in landownership.
> 
> http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell...0409/0030.html


Here it is...

Depression Hits Robinson Crusoe's Island
by Mrs. Mary Atterbury

"Friday," said Robinson Crusoe, "I'm sorry, I fear I must
lay you off."

"What do you mean, Master?"

"Why, you know there's a big surplus of last year's crop. I
don't need you to plant another this year. I've got enough
goatskin coats to last me a lifetime. My house needs no
repairs. I can gather turtle eggs myself. There's an
overproduction. When I need you I will send for you. You
needn't wait around here."

"That's all right, Master, I'll plant my own crop, build up
my own hut and gather all the eggs and nuts I want myself.
I'll get along fine."

"Where will you do this, Friday?"

"Here on this island."

"This island belongs to me, you know. I can't allow you to
do that. When you can't pay me anything I need I might as
well not own it."

"Then I'll build a canoe and fish in the ocean. You don't
own that."

"That's all right, provided you don't use any of my trees
for your canoe, or build it on my land, or use my beach for
a landing place, and do your fishing far enough away so you
don't interfere with my riparian rights."

"I never thought of that, Master. I can do without a boat,
though. I can swim over to that rock and fish there and
gather sea-gull eggs."

"No you won't, Friday. The rock is mine. I own riparian rights."

"What shall I do, Master?"

"That's your problem, Friday. You're a free man, and you
know about rugged individualism being maintained here."

"I guess I'll starve, Master. May I stay here until I do? Or
shall I swim beyond your riparian rights and drown or starve
there?"

"I've thought of something, Friday. I don't like to carry my
garbage down to the shore each day. You may stay and do
that. Then whatever is left of it, after my dog and cat have
fed, you may eat. You're in luck."

"Thank you, Master. That is true charity."

"One more thing, Friday. This island is overpopulated. Fifty
percent of the people are unemployed. We are undergoing a
severe depression, and there is no way that I can see to end
it. No one but a charlatan would say that he could. And if
any ship comes don't let them land any goods of any kind.
You must be protected against foreign labor. Conditions are
fundamentally sound, though. And prosperity is just around
the corner."

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Geoism is the antitheses of the individual liberty movement and the beliefs of Ron Paul.


You are in la-la land. And have an inane ability not to learn.

----------


## Roy L

> The 2-3 accounts have consistently debated in several threads against outright individual ownership of private property.


That is a lie.  We have consistently stated our absolute commitment to securing private property in the things that can rightfully be property, because owning them does not inherently violate others' rights: i.e., products of labor.  Owning land, by contrast, inherently removes others' rights to liberty, and land therefore cannot rightly be property.

You have no facts, logic, or arguments to offer, so you have no choice but to lie about what we have plainly written.



> I pointed out these beliefs and propaganda tactics are commonly associated with the more populist Communist ideology.


You lied about what we had plainly written.



> I never used those terms in your reply nor took it to a personal level.


ROTFL!!



> Yet responses from the two of you have been a personal attack on anyone that responds and claiming we are all liars.


We have identified specific false claims uttered with intent to deceive.  Those are by definition lies.

----------


## Roy L

> Ecowarrior/royl. Why you even here? You're not free market people like the rest of us.


It is you who are not free market people.  Welfare subsidy giveaways to a privileged minority financed by stealing from the productive can't be part of a free market:

In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago -- Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics and free market icon

Milton Friedman understood what free markets are all about.  You do not.  Simple.



> We've tried your ideas and to date, they are a disaster.


Lie.  To the extent that our ideas have been tried, they have always succeeded brilliantly.



> You're a collectivist and collectivism doesn't work.


Our position is based on restoring the INDIVIDUAL right to liberty, stop lying.



> Collectivism destroys desire and incentive. We don't all have the same goal. Face it.


You don't have the goal of liberty, justice and prosperity.  I know.



> RPFer's. Why you arguing with these idiots?


It is very simple: Ron Paul supporters are willing to think in terms of principles, and challenge assumptions and orthodoxies.



> With names like royal and Eco (anything) and topics like land ownership and taxes you're bound to have a loosing battle even when you're right.


Which they aren't.

----------


## redbluepill

> Geoism is the antitheses of the individual liberty movement and the beliefs of Ron Paul.


Ron Paul is not a anarchist. He is a constitutionist with libertarian leanings. He doesn't like taxes (and rightly so for majority of them) but you are delusional if you ever thought he would even attempt to get rid of all taxes if he had become president.

----------


## kahless

> That is a lie.  We have consistently stated our absolute commitment to securing private property in the things that can rightfully be property, because owning them does not inherently violate others' rights: i.e., products of labor.  *Owning land, by contrast, inherently removes others' rights to liberty, and land therefore cannot rightly be property.*


So again you re-stated in bold my post that you do not believe in individual ownership of private property.  The debate is about land and homes that are taxed. You do not believe in individual ownership in private property.  




> You have no facts, logic, or arguments to offer, so you have no choice but to lie about what we have plainly written.


I stated your belief and you confirmed my statement is your belief as recently as what you posted in bold above. All land and homes in your view is community property that should be subject to rent.  Yet you continue to call me a liar. 

You have gone as far as to correct me to state you are not a Communist but believe in Georgism.  Both which disallow individual ownership of private property and believe all property is community property.

What I have learned from this thread is that believers in Georgism use the same propaganda tactics as Communists.

----------


## redbluepill

> You have gone as far as to correct me to state you are not a Communist but believe in Georgism.  Both which disallow individual ownership of private property and believe all property is community property.


And once again, you fail to understand. Georgists want improvements/capital to be private property. Even land itself would be in private hands, but it does not mean we recognize land can rightfully be considered property just as human beings cannot be rightfully considered property.

Thomas Paine sums up our views on property:
"it is value of the improvement only, and *not the earth itself, that is individual property.* Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land owes to the community a ground-rent, for I know no better term to express the idea by, for the land which he holds."

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/Paine.htm

----------


## Steven Douglas

> *Of course [community] exists [as other than a mental construct]!!!! * Are you some sort of nutball?


No, just a rational human being pointing out your failure to demonstrate how "community" exists other than a nebulous, ever-shifting mental construct.  Actually read osan's post on the subject and answer that.  




> Are you paid to infest forums?  You have never answered that.


Yes, while you infest forums with your nasty ideology for free, I am actually paid (voluntarily, no less) in literally billions and trillions of something.  You might want to look into the Subjective Theory of Value for an explanation as to why your infestation is not valued, and to the degree that is, you might consider selling out while tons of geoist moonbat guano is still selling.




> You are clearly a free-loader.


I am? Of what - your nebulous, collectivist mental construct (which you presume to speak on behalf of) referred to as "community"? If so, I can definitely live with that, as it's a NON-ENTITY - a mental fiction - and we're back to square one, with you the one who is clearly befuddled.  

Speaking as an individual member of anything you might define in your mind as "community", you and your geoist ideology, as you've presented it, can go take a powder.

----------


## kahless

> Ron Paul is not a anarchist. He is a constitutionist with libertarian leanings.


Ron has said that he is a believer in Voluntaryism (self government) which is a form of Anarchism.  The belief that there is no state and no taxation, a rejection of the initiation of force and all services are provided by competing firms.




> He doesn't like taxes (and rightly so for majority of them) but you are delusional if you ever thought he would even attempt to get rid of all taxes if he had become president.


I never said I thought he could.  The President is not a dictatorship so I doubt he could get that far but he could introduce legislation to reduce the tax burden. For example in 2006 he made this recommendation to the Texas state legislature.  I posted this first since the underlined parts below I have been repeatedly called a liar in this thread for pointing this out.  So not only are you are calling me a liar you are also calling Ron Paul a liar. 




> , I would like the state legislature to consider an additional proposal.
> 
> Specifically, end the practice of annual assessments. Properties should be reassessed for tax purposes only when sold or ownership is otherwise transferred. The current system is terrifying for seniors forced to pay more and more each year, with no idea where they will find the money. And unlike other bills, property taxes must be paid or else one's home can be taken away. My office hears from seniors who may have no choice but to leave Texas altogether because they cannot live with the uncertainty of arbitrary property tax increases. They literally fear losing their homes.
> 
> At the federal level, Congress can act now to provide relief to those paying high property taxes. Although property taxes are deductible on your federal tax return, the current rules require taxpayers to itemize to take the deduction. Many people have a hard time paying $2,000 or $3,000 in property taxes, but they don't have enough other itemized deductions to exceed the standard deduction.
> 
> I introduced HR 5860 to address this problem. This legislation creates an above the line deduction on the first page of your 1040, meaning you can deduct every penny of your property taxes without itemizing and still enjoy the full value of your standard deduction. Even taxpayers using 1040A or 1040EZ forms can take the deduction. This means average and lower income taxpayers can take the same deduction for their property taxes that high-income taxpayers with complex deductions now enjoy.


An example of Ron might do as President.




> Congressman Paul Introduces the Property Tax Deduction for All Act
> 
>     December 11, 2007
> 
>     For immediate release
> 
>     Washington , DC - Congressman Ron Paul is yet again chipping away at the back-breaking tax burden on middle-class Americans with his recently proposed legislation. The Property Tax Deduction for All Act would make taxes on property an above the line deduction, meaning that taxpayers could deduct their property taxes without having to itemize all their deductions.
> 
>     This would make the deduction available to millions of homeowners who take the standard deduction.
> ...

----------


## Roy L

> So again you re-stated in bold my post that you do not believe in individual ownership of private property.


No, you have again baldly lied about what I wrote in clear, plain, grammatical English.



> The debate is about land and homes that are taxed.


And...?  I have stated that the land should be taxed and not the homes, as the former is not rightly property but the latter is.

What if the debate was about slaves that were taxed?  If I said those slaves were not rightly property, would you also lie then that I did not believe in individual ownership of private property?  What if someone legally owned the sun, and I stated that the sun could not rightly be property, and on that basis advocated taxing its owner?  Would you also lie then that I did not believe in individual ownership of private property?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.



> You do not believe in individual ownership in private property.


You again baldly lie about what I have written repeatedly in clear, plain, grammatical English.



> I stated your belief and you confirmed my statement is your belief as recently as what you posted in bold above.


No.  You baldly lied about my belief; I identified and proved the fact that you lied about my belief; and now you have again lied not only about my belief, but about what I wrote in clear, plain, grammatical English.



> All land and homes in your view is community property that should be subject to rent.


No.  You have now again baldly lied about what I have clearly written, multiple times, in clear, plain, grammatical English.  I have stated repeatedly that products of labor, such as homes, are rightly private property, while things that are not products of labor, such as the sun, are not rightly private property.



> Yet you continue to call me a liar.


I have not called you a liar.  That is a lie.  I have merely identified and proved the fact that your statements are consistently lies.



> You have gone as far as to correct me to state you are not a Communist but believe in Georgism.


That is another lie.  I have not said I believe in Georgism.  I have said many times in these land-related threads that I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist.



> Both which disallow individual ownership of private property and believe all property is community property.


That is a bald, flat-out lie about Georgism.



> What I have learned from this thread is that believers in Georgism use the same propaganda tactics as Communists.


What I have learned is that you have no compunction about lying your silly head off.

----------


## Roy L

> No, just a rational human being pointing out your failure to demonstrate how "community" exists other than a nebulous, ever-shifting mental construct.


Lie, as already proved.



> Actually read osan's post on the subject and answer that.


I have demolished and humiliated osan for his absurdities, just as I have repeatedly demolished and humiliated you for yours.  You just have no shame.



> I am? Of what - your nebulous, collectivist mental construct (which you presume to speak on behalf of) referred to as "community"?


Of the productive, who must pay for government twice in order that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for contributing exactly nothing.



> If so, I can definitely live with that, as it's a NON-ENTITY - a mental fiction - and we're back to square one, with you the one who is clearly befuddled.


You are indisputably lying, as no one over the age of four can be ignorant of the community's existence, even if they don't yet know its name.

----------


## Roy L

> The belief that there is no state and no taxation, a rejection of the initiation of force and all services are provided by competing firms.


It is the landowner who initiates force (or rather, has government do it for him) against all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.  That is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality.  You just have to refuse to know that fact, as you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I have demolished and humiliated osan for his absurdities, just as I have repeatedly demolished and humiliated you for yours.  You just have no shame.


That sounds eerily like something right out of a badly written script for a cheesy B grade martial arts movie.


"I have demolished your village and humiliated and
punished osan for his treasonous absurdities, just
as I have repeatedly demolished and humiliated you
for yours.  I will also eat your rice cakes, because you
have no honor.  Make your time, gentlemen. All your
base are belong to us."



> No, you have again baldly lied...
> You again baldly lie...
> You baldly lied...you lied... and now you have again lied...
> You have now again baldly lied.
> *I have not called you a liar.*  That is a lie.  
> That is another lie.  
> That is a bald, flat-out lie...
> What I have learned is that you have no compunction about lying...


Oof - another one bites the dust. This time it is not a liar, but only someone who lies and lies and lies.

----------


## Roy L

> Oof - another one bites the dust. This time it is not a liar, but only someone who lies and lies and lies.


Are you insinuating that kahless is a liar?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Are you insinuating that kahless is a liar?


No, I think you pretty much did that - I was just flowing with and writing from the perspective of the Don Quixote imaginings of your mind.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> No, just a rational human being pointing out your failure to demonstrate how "community"


On planet earth human community exists - physically.  It is not an abstract thing. I can't speak for la-la world.




> your nebulous, collectivist mental construct (which you presume to speak on behalf of) referred to as "community"? If so, I can definitely live with that, as it's a NON-ENTITY - a mental fiction - and we're back to square one, with you the one who is clearly befuddled.


Your mindstate is of no concern of mine. But first you have to accept that in human society "community" exists. Geoism prevents people appropriating, and exploiting, common wealth of the land and its resources.  

First to get it all sorted in the muddle of your mind, you need to accept that there is:


*1. Community
2. Common Wealth*

The above is so. I never made it up.

Also get into your muddled mind, that Geoism is Geonomics. It is NOT an ideology. It is an economic system. It rights many wrongs and eliminates free-loaders.  You promote free-loading.  Geoism promotes freedom for the individual..

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Non-response with appeals to Geonomic scriptural dogma snipped...


What can I say, you're one of the faithful choir, EcoWarrier(sic), with arguments that are as simplistic and circular as they are rote.  Can't argue with that! 

Have a nice Geonomics.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That is a lie.  We have consistently stated our absolute commitment to securing private property in the things that can rightfully be property, because owning them does not inherently violate others' rights: i.e., products of labor.  Owning land, by contrast, inherently removes others' rights to liberty, and land therefore cannot rightly be property.


The definition of land under Geoism is not property. It cannot be as it is common wealth. But Geonomics does not oppose title holding to land and exchanging this title, and rectifies all using the mechanism of Land Valuation Taxation.

The core of Geonomics is Land Valuation Taxation, the Single Tax. It is merely a tax shift nothing else.  All else stays the same. Business behavior stays the same. 

It is laughable that many here think a tax shift is some sort of Commie move.  Geoism was promoted heavily by that famous Commie ....Winston Churchill.  Some of the best speeches promoting are by Churchill. 

Churchill continually debunked the Old Widow they continually wheel out - calling it the "Old Widow Bogey".  

It is amazing they still do that today.   They have only one bent arrow to their bow.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> EcoWarrier(sic), with arguments that are as simplistic and circular


I do not go around in circles at all. I know when to stop dead and look ahead.  Clarity of thought does that for you. Identifying and separating essentials like "community", "private wealth", "common wealth" are essential to understand before you advance, otherwise, like you you, go around in circles.

Then once the basics are understood:
Identify where common wealth is and where the common is wealth going. If this common wealth is not going into a common fund for common purposes then private free-loading is occurring. In effect stealing.Also, identify where private wealth is and where the private is wealth going. If this private wealth is not going into private pockets, state free-loading is occurring.  In effect stealing.

Currently Numbers 1 & 2 occur - which is theft.  Geonomic rectifies this theft.

----------


## redbluepill

> Ron has said that he is a believer in Voluntaryism (self government) which is a form of Anarchism. The belief that there is no state and no taxation, a rejection of the initiation of force and all services are provided by competing firms.


Perhaps ideally, but in practice he is a constitutionist. No one who practices voluntaryism would support his immigration policies.




> I never said I thought he could. The President is not a dictatorship so I doubt he could get that far but he could introduce legislation to reduce the tax burden.


You know he said he would probably sign the National Sales Tax into law if he were president and it crossed his desk? Such a tax policy would be way more of a burden to citizens than anything I proposed.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/




> For example in 2006 he made this recommendation to the Texas state legislature. I posted this first since the underlined parts below I have been repeatedly called a liar in this thread for pointing this out. So not only are you are calling me a liar you are also calling Ron Paul a liar.


Lol, wait what? When did I call you a liar? (Maybe I did but I rarely call people liars unless they are clearly trolling).

And I am all for simplifying the property tax. In fact, I want an end to the property tax as it is now. It taxes your house and all other improvements. Replace it with the LVT which has a proven track record of lessening tax burdens of homeowners.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

why would the government vote to abolish their job security?They own your land.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> That link is good.
> 
> Robinson Crusoe lands shipwrecked on the desert island.
> Man Friday is already there on the beach.
> 
> Friday says, "I am all alone and have been here a year". 
> He went on, "I have formed a government and a law system and I 
> elect myself to all the assemblies and I am the president.
> Friday continues, "also I own all the LAND of the island and I will 
> ...


To all the geoist what is more important to you, that we someday have a land value tax to replace the current property tax or to convince everyone that they cannot own land? I’m curious. I’m not against an improvement over the current tax, if given no other choice but, between a progressive income tax with complicated deductions and a flat tax. I choose the flat tax. If you sold me on the merits of LVT and implement it, don’t you win? Is it that important that my view be exactly as yours? I reason that, I can no more own a parcel of the sea than that of land, but I do not exist on the sea, I exist on land, I am only a creature of land. If I refuse or am unable to pay rent, anybody’s rent, am I to be denied my existents? Or denied my freedom? Or force into labor for my retribution? I only wish to exist. If land cannot be owned, then in its purity, it cannot be bought and sold by any individual or collection of individuals. We may each plant our dwelling where possible, squat where we can, as long as we don’t squat on someone else.  when we are done we simply move on. The next filling the vacancy, Except for the improvement no transaction needed. No one be thy slave. If you choose to allow me to purchase or rent your dwelling I may, but not the land it sits on. The Robinson Crusoe story is interesting Friday claims he is the owner of all the island and he is the government. So in the story the government owned the land and charged rent, producing much oppression, much tyranny. Is that not what you propose, only the government can own the land therefor rent MUST be paid? I say the collection of individuals can no more own land than the individual. The collection of individuals cannot rightfully charge me rent nor the individual. That would be worse than theft. That is a price on my existents. That is slavery. What does it matter to the slave, if his master is, but one or many? Therefor I reject all taxes on improvements and land, both are evil.

----------


## Roy L

> To all the geoist what is more important to you, that we someday have a land value tax to replace the current property tax or to convince everyone that they cannot own land? Im curious.


IMO, if you think you own land in the same way you own the fruits of your labor, then there is no reason to change from income tax, sales tax or property tax to land value tax.  They are all fundamentally the same.  It is only by being willing to know the fact that you do not rightly own the publicly created value of your land that you can understand why LVT is morally and economically superior to other taxes.



> Im not against an improvement over the current tax, if given no other choice but, between a progressive income tax with complicated deductions and a flat tax. I choose the flat tax. If you sold me on the merits of LVT and implement it, dont you win?


Maybe temporarily.  That has happened in the past.  The economic miracle of Meiji Japan was the direct result of using LVT.  But they didn't understand it, so they let it be eroded; and then as landowners gained total economic rulership, the country turned fascist.



> Is it that important that my view be exactly as yours?


I don't care what your view is.  You are entitled to your own views.  But you are not entitled to your own facts.



> I reason that, I can no more own a parcel of the sea than that of land, but I do not exist on the sea, I exist on land, I am only a creature of land. If I refuse or am unable to pay rent, anybodys rent, am I to be denied my existents?


That is what LVT + UIE secures for you: your rights to life and liberty.



> Or denied my freedom?


It is private landowning that denies you your freedom.



> Or force into labor for my retribution?


If you have your rights, you cannot be forced into labor.



> I only wish to exist.


I doubt that.  You also want access to opportunity.



> If land cannot be owned, then in its purity, it cannot be bought and sold by any individual or collection of individuals. We may each plant our dwelling where possible, squat where we can, as long as we dont squat on someone else.


One can have exclusive tenure without ownership, as Hong Kong proves.



> The Robinson Crusoe story is interesting Friday claims he is the owner of all the island and he is the government. So in the story the government owned the land and charged rent, producing much oppression, much tyranny. Is that not what you propose, only the government can own the land therefor rent MUST be paid?


The government is under democratic control, and has the job of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to use the land.  It has a right to collect the rent on behalf of the people because it is administering the land in trust for the people.  It also provides services and infrastructure needed to support civilization, and which create the rent.  It therefore both earns the rent and has a right to collect it.  The private landowner does none of those things, and therefore does not.



> I say the collection of individuals can no more own land than the individual.


True.  But it can and must administer possession and use of the land in trust for all who have equal rights to use it.



> The collection of individuals cannot rightfully charge me rent nor the individual.


Wrong.  The community performs a role of trustee that the individual does not perform.



> That would be worse than theft. That is a price on my existents. That is slavery.


That is why the UIE is needed.



> What does it matter to the slave, if his master is, but one or many? Therefor I reject all taxes on improvements and land, both are evil.


Your assertions were proved false above.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It is private landowning that denies you your freedom.


If I purchase land, how does that deny freedom to anybody else? What sort of freedom is being denied? Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble?  Freedom of religion?

----------


## Roy L

> If I purchase land, how does that deny freedom to anybody else?


It doesn't matter if you purchase it or the current owner keeps it, others are still denied their freedom to use it.  Making land into private property inherently removes others' liberty to use it, liberty they would have had if the owner -- with government's generous help -- did not forcibly remove it.



> What sort of freedom is being denied? Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble?  Freedom of religion?


Freedom to use what nature provided to sustain one's life.

If one acre is owned out of all the world, it doesn't matter much -- like not letting people use the word, "exfoliate" doesn't affect their freedom of speech much.  But when all the good land is taken as private property, those without land have no choice but to serve the landowners or starve to death.  That's like not being able to use any of the words you want to use, like, "liberty," "justice," "truth," and "honesty."

----------


## Zippyjuan

Would that apply to other things I may own- say I have a car then anybody who wants to use it should be able too- lest I deny them the freedom to use it?  Or my house I live in- they should be free to come in and do whatever they want whenever they want to? IF I have land and want to put a farm on it and somebody thinks society should have a factory or garbage dump on it instead, they should tell the person on the land how they should use it? Is that freedom if others are telling you what to do? How should the "best use" of the land be decided?

If I buy land, I am more likely to try to maintain its value and get positive use out of it. If nobody owns it it is more likely to get abused and trashed and its value lessened (see Tragedy of the Commons). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Look around your own community. Which houses are better maintained- the rentals or those owned by people who live there?  Which then would have the greater "value"? 

If "society" gets value from the land, they will get the most "value" if it is owned than if it is rented via LVT. Society does not add value ot the land they can "take back" by taxing the value of the land- any value gets added by how the land is used and what the owner does.

----------


## Roy L

> Would that apply to other things I may own- say I have a car then anybody who wants to use it should be able too- lest I deny them the freedom to use it?


No, because your car is not something they would otherwise be at liberty to use.  You had to provide it, by buying it from the people who made it.  You did not provide the land, because no one made it.  You merely bought it from a previous owner who was violating others' rights to use what was there all along, with no help from him or anyone else.

You will now refuse to know that fact.



> Or my house I live in- they should be free to come in and do whatever they want whenever they want to?


See above.  Try to find a willingness to know the fact that the car and house were not already there anyway, ready to use.  The land was.



> IF I have land


How could you "have" land other than by removing others' liberty to use it?



> and want to put a farm on it and somebody thinks society should have a factory or garbage dump on it instead, they should tell the person on the land how they should use it?


Those who want to exclude others from the land need to compensate those whose rights they violate.  The market value of that compensation is the high bid.  The high bidder pays his bid to the community of those whose rights he will be violating, and gets to use the land for the purpose he chooses (within the permitted uses) and exclude others from it.



> Is that freedom if others are telling you what to do?


No one is "telling" the landholder what to do, other than not to do things that would jeopardize productive use of nearby land.

Is it freedom if you have to give the fruits of your labor to a landowner in return for nothing? 


> How should the "best use" of the land be decided?


By the market.  But communities also need to be able to block certain uses based on available and planned infrastructure, the externality effects of nuisance uses like garbage dumps, etc.  I know there are lots of problems with zoning, especially corruption, but those problems result from giving away publicly created land value to private landowners.



> If I buy land, I am more likely to try to maintain its value and get positive use out of it.


No, you're not, because land does not need any maintenance; you have no effect on its unimproved value; and you are more likely to use it productively if you are paying rent for it every month than if you are just holding it for a capital gain.  This fact is proved by the thousands of privately owned vacant lots and abandoned buildings that clutter every major American city, even ones like NYC where land values are astronomical.



> If nobody owns it it is more likely to get abused and trashed and its value lessened (see Tragedy of the Commons). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


Only if government does not perform its legitimate function of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to use it.  Garrett Hardin, the _author_ of "The Tragedy of the Commons," was dismayed that his work was appropriated by right-wing know-nothings as an argument for privatization of public resources, because he was actually arguing for better public stewardship of them.



> If "society" gets value from the land, they will get the most "value" if it is owned than if it is rented via LVT.


That claim is objectively false, as proved above.  Privately owned land is often held vacant for decades at a stretch.  Rented land, by contrast, is used productively, or yielded to a more productive user.



> Society does not add value ot the land they can "take back" by taxing the value of the land-


You know that is false.  Land value is identically equal to the minimum value the owner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes.



> any value gets added by how the land is used and what the owner does.


No, that is a flat-out lie.  You are just lying.  You *know* that vacant, unused land in the middle of a community like NYC has astronomical value even if the owner is comatose.  You *KNOW* that its unimproved value, which any competent appraiser can measure with a high degree of accuracy, is totally unaffected by how the land is used and what the owner does.



> Look around your own community. Which houses are better maintained- the rentals or those owned by people who live there?


How would that be relevant?  Improvements are not land, and the incentives are totally different.  There is a place in my own community where people have built their own houses on rented land.  Those houses are the best maintained of all, because their owners are paying for the location every month, they consequently want to make the most productive use of it, and they know they can't count on land value appreciation to make up for improvement value depreciation.  The WORST maintained houses are the vacant ones on privately owned land, whose owners are just waiting to pocket the capital gain when they figure the community has given them enough land value.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Zippy Juan
> 
> If nobody owns it it is more likely to get abused and trashed and its value lessened (see Tragedy of the Commons). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
> 
> 
> Only if government does not perform its legitimate function of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to use it.


*Zippy Juan's Problem:* Equal rights of all to use the same resource results in its damage and/or depletion.   (Tragedy of the Commons)
*Roy's Solution:* Government must secure and reconcile equal rights to use of all to use it.  

The Tragedy of the Commons is caused by everyone _already having_ an equal, free right of common access to use of the same parcel of land, or common resource. Thus, on the surface, Roy's solution might appear to be a logical absurdity, as he seems to be advocating the very cause of the problem as a solution.  But that is not what Roy means when he says "_securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to use it_". 

The net effect of Roy's solution (as government's "legitimate function") is to forcibly remove equal access to all for use of Common Land.  What was once *equal access to all* becomes *exclusive access granted to one* (whomever is willing to pay the highest fee to the taxing jurisdiction that administers the land appropriated to it). 




> Garrett Hardin, the _author_  of "The Tragedy of the Commons," was dismayed that his work was  appropriated by right-wing know-nothings as an argument for  privatization of public resources, because he was actually arguing for  better public stewardship of them.


This can be somewhat misleading, because Roy's argument is for the privatization _of exclusive access_ to those same "public resources".  That wouldn't change. The only difference in either case (leasehold under LVT or freehold under landownership) is who is entitled to the economic rents - NOT the fact that exclusive access to the resource itself is granted and secured by the state to some paying entity, to the physical exclusion of all others.

Granting exclusive access to land to a single paying entity eliminates the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons, but creates a new problem, as everyone else is now physically, forcibly excluded or prevented from access to use of that same land.  Under Roy's paradigm, that is a "right" that is unalienable, and therefore infringed. This infringement is then reconciled (economically) by Roy's solution in two parts: 

In parsing what Roy wrote, note that he stated that government has a "_legitimate function of_ *securing* _and_ *reconciling* _the equal rights_ *of all to use it*." (three operative words). So government must: 

1) secure the equal rights of all to use "it", and it must also
2) reconcile the rights of all to use "it".  

In the context of *securing the equal rights of all to use "it"*, Roy could not have meant securing actual physical access (to everyone) to that particular parcel of land. Exclusive access is already granted to a single entity, which necessarily precludes access/use of that parcel of land to everyone else, who are necessarily excluded. Thus, that parcel of land is no longer available for their use during the term of the leasehold (which can be a lifetime for many if the leasehold remains in force for a long enough term).  What cannot be physically "secured" as physical access must then be "reconciled" by compensation to individuals for a right that still exists but has been infringed - "reconciling" being the other operative word, through the unspoken-but-implied "just compensation". 

What Roy's proposal really boils down to are the mechanics of "*reconciling the rights of all to use it*" whenever they are infringed upon (by agreement between the state and the landholder through which exclusive use and access is granted). The solution and rationale of this reconciliation are two-fold, involving Land Value Tax (LVT) and Roy's Universal Individual Exemption (UIE).  

Under Roy's paradigm, LVT paid to the taxing jurisdiction is the equivalent of paying everyone in that community who was deprived of any access or use of any land within that taxing jurisdiction.  However, that revenue is not paid to those individuals, and cannot be called just compensation to them to the extent that they do not receive it, as this revenue goes directly to the State, ostensibly to pay for government services and infrastructure that contributed, in part, to the value of land in the first place.  

Scarce lands are allocated, from most to least valued lands, not according to equal rights of all, but rather according to the willingness and ability on the parts of certain entities (individuals or others, regardless of their legal status) to pay the most to the taxing jurisdiction.  This satisfies the state's requirement for funding for services, infrastructure and other expenditures (some of which COULD, in theory, go individuals), but does not necessarily secure or reconcile any of the rights of those excluded from use or access to better lands held in common (for want of the  willingness and ability to pay more to the taxing jurisdiction).   That's where the UIE kicks in.* 

The Universal Individual Exemption (UIE) would be granted to all individuals living within a taxing jurisdiction for the same amount to all that is said to be equal, according to Roy, for "enough good land to live on" (as defined by the state).  That exemption could then be applied toward any land, thus making individuals exempt from paying for economic rents.  The UIE is the primary mechanism for direct *reconciliation* ("just compensation") for any losses suffered by individuals for having been excluded from use of other land parcels in that taxing jurisdiction.    

* Some LVT proponents propose actual dividends paid out to individuals  - the way Alaska does now with tax dividends paid on oil revenues, but that is not discussed as it is not part of Roy's version of policy proposals surrounding his version of LVT. 




> Privately owned land is often held vacant for decades at a stretch.  Rented land, by contrast, is used productively, or yielded to a more productive user.


Often true also of publicly owned land, which is often held vacant (in reserve) throughout the entire existence of the state.




> Land value is identically equal to the minimum value the owner expects to take...


Aside from buyer/owner/holder expectations, actual market value is a forever transient phenomenon -- a dynamic variable that could be much more or much less than anyone's expectation - as anyone who bought in 2007 with long speculation in mind learned quickly enough as sellers made out like bandits while many buyers were turned upside down.  Likewise longterm leaseholdings in Hong Kong, the real market value of which always deviates from what the leaseholder expects to take as minimum value versus what the state expected to capture in land value.

----------


## Kluge

This is insane. If I've worked all summer on a garden, planted and nurtured fruit trees and bushes--Roy thinks that people have the right to come on my property and steal the results of my labor, simply because that type of work requires land?

I drove by hundreds of farms today, but I didn't stop and take any of the vegetables/fruits being produced because that would be stealing. 

I'll sell that to Roy, but if he thinks he can just walk onto someone's property and take the products of their work, he's a criminal. If he wants to be able to walk onto someone's land, he better get a job as a $#@!ing landscaper or sharecropper. Otherwise he's nothing but a leech on the productive, who will probably end up with a shotgun pointed at him when he trespasses on the wrong property.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> This is insane. If I've worked all summer on a garden, planted and nurtured fruit trees and bushes--Roy thinks that people have the right to come on my property and steal the results of my labor, simply because that type of work requires land?


In fairness, as the LVT argument goes, the results of your labor belong exclusively to you. 100%.  Most LVT "single tax" proponents don't believe in income, sales, capital gains and other forms of taxes that erode equity or ownership of labor or capital. But they do argue that unimproved land (the geographic location and raw earth, below and apart from any improvements) must be taken out of the realm of being considered as capital. 

What they are claiming is that the farmers' exclusive use (in the case of scarce agricultural lands) deprives others of their "equal right" to farm that same land, and produce the same fruits of their labors for themselves on that same land, which they see as Common (no matter how it's worded - collectively owned, Common Land, publicly owned, publicly administered, etc.,).  

All of the roads, power lines, etc., leading up to that land, along with other surrounding infrastructure, creates part of the "market value" of that land. That's a Supply Side component of value. That is coupled with the Demand Side component (without which there can be no market value) - the fact that there are others who would be willing to pay some price for it (are covetous for their own use of that particular land).  

All factors (both public and private) that contribute to the market value of land are collectivized under a single umbrella called "publicly created wealth", aka ground rents, or economic rent. Their idea that everyone has a right (liberty) to use ALL land renders all land privately unownable in the first place. Thus, they don't consider the Land Value Tax as stealing from anyone. Quite the opposite, their paradigm sees anyone who uses land exclusively without compensating everyone else (perpetually) as depriving others of their "liberty rights" (without "just compensation") and stealing from "the community". A portion of the farmer's crops, which are earned, may have to be sold and converted into currency to pay this tax (since value comes partly out of thin are, but wealth itself does not), but that's the rationale -- he's only compensating others for their deprivations. 

So LVT is only the mechanism for "reclaiming" only what they see as "publicly created value" (or wealth, as value and wealth are conflated as one and the same) of unimproved land.  The value of that land is only that which was provided by *nature, government, and "community"*. 

Community is the omnibus word that accounts for, collectivizes, and lays claims on behalf of, the many contributions/contributors to land value that are strictly private in origin. Such value (whether it translates into wealth or not) is seen as not being the result of private labor or improvements on that particular land, so it is captured on the basis that it is "unearned wealth" (unearned riches). 

For a good treatment of the fallacy and hypocrisy of attacking unearned riches see *The Rap Against Unearned Riches*

----------


## Kluge

> In fairness, as the LVT argument goes, the results of your labor belong exclusively to you. 100%.  Most LVT "single tax" proponents don't believe in income, sales, capital gains and other forms of taxes that erode equity or ownership of labor or capital. But they do argue that unimproved land (the geographic location and raw earth, below and apart from any improvements) must be taken out of the realm of being considered as capital. 
> 
> What they are claiming is that your exclusive use of scarce agricultural lands deprives others of their "equal right" to farm that same land, and produce the same fruits of their labors for themselves on that same land, which they see as Common (no matter how it's worded - collectively owned, Common Land, publicly owned, publicly administered, etc.,).  
> 
> All of the roads, power lines, etc., leading up to that land, along with other surrounding infrastructure, creates part of the "market value" of that land. That is coupled with the fact that there are others who would be willing to pay some price for it (are covetous for their own use of that particular land).  
> 
> All factors (both public and private) that contribute to the market value of land are collectivized under a single umbrella called "publicly created wealth", aka ground rents, or economic rent. Their idea that everyone has a right (liberty) to use ALL land renders all land privately ownable in the first place. Thus, they don't consider the Land Value Tax as stealing from anyone. Quite the opposite, their paradigm sees anyone who uses land exclusively without compensating everyone else (perpetually) as depriving others of their "liberty rights" (without "just compensation") and stealing from "the community".  LVT is only the means for "reclaiming" only what they see as "publicly created value" (or wealth, as value and wealth are conflated) of unimproved land, or only that which was provided by *nature, government, and "community"* (the last being an omnibus way of accounting for, and collectivizing, and laying claims on behalf of, any contributions/contributors to land value that are strictly private in origin).  
> 
> In other words, they want to capture the value that was not the result of private improvements, which they refer to as "unearned wealth" (unearned riches). 
> ...


Thanks for explaining, I haven't had the stomach to keep up with this thread.

People like Roy are all the more reason to generate my own power and stay off the grid as much as possible. I already pay for the roads via gas taxes and other taxes, so they can shove that. In rural areas, private individuals usually pay for power lines/cable lines, etc. And they definitely pay for wells and septic fields. 

It seems they want an across the board solution for something that varies from person to person. We drive very infrequently and the gas tax makes sense to me--those who use the road more often, pay more. What would they have me do--buy a road from the government?

It just sounds so ridiculous.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Thanks for explaining, I haven't had the stomach to keep up with this thread.
> 
> People like Roy are all the more reason to generate my own power and stay off the grid as much as possible. I already pay for the roads via gas taxes and other taxes, so they can shove that. In rural areas, private individuals usually pay for power lines/cable lines, etc. And they definitely pay for wells and septic fields. 
> 
> It seems they want an across the board solution for something that varies from person to person. We drive very infrequently and the gas tax makes sense to me--those who use the road more often, pay more. What would they have me do--buy a road from the government?
> 
> It just sounds so ridiculous.


I agree, for those and many other reasons.  I stay focused and engaged with the LVT threads to learn every angle I can about its proponents and their various rationale and approaches, because I do see it as a potential threat to the very things its proponents think it will cure.   There are many reasonable points they make, which I don't see as applying equally to everyone, as you pointed out.  But because private landownership (ALL landownership, as a generic globally encompassing blanket) is blamed as being the root cause of every human evil imaginable, LVT gets shoveled out in its various forms as a utopian panacea with very little critical thinking - the miracle cure for everything that ails humanity, and the deliverer of liberty and justice for all.  

If there is a baby in that bathwater, and I am convinced there is, I would prefer to identify that baby and drain the rest of the cloudy, murky tub.

----------


## Roy L

> This is insane.


That must be why many great thinkers, including many great economists, have embraced it.



> If I've worked all summer on a garden, planted and nurtured fruit trees and bushes--Roy thinks that people have the right to come on my property and steal the results of my labor, simply because that type of work requires land?


No.  That's just some stupid, dishonest garbage you made up.



> I'll sell that to Roy, but if he thinks he can just walk onto someone's property and take the products of their work, he's a criminal.


The land is not a product of anyone's work, and is therefore not anyone's rightful property.



> If he wants to be able to walk onto someone's land, he better get a job as a $#@!ing landscaper or sharecropper. Otherwise he's nothing but a leech on the productive, who will probably end up with a shotgun pointed at him when he trespasses on the wrong property.


It is indisputably the landowner who is the leech on the productive, as already proved many times.  You can easily prove it to yourself, by trying to answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

See?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> "How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?" See?


Yes, I see!



That always has been a very clumsy and convoluted question, Roy.  I'll have to parse that out and reconstruct that ridiculous pretzel so that everyone can easily see what you are really trying to say -- including the part you think ought to be a big "GOTCHA!" or an "AHAH!" moment.

----------


## Roy L

> Yes, I see!


I guess when you need to avoid knowing something, and you have no facts, logic or arguments to offer, funny little pictures might enable you to forget that your beliefs have been proved false and evil.  If you are easily distracted.



> That always has been a very clumsy and convoluted question, Roy.


Lie.  It is very clear and simple, and you know it.  You just can't answer it, so you have to refuse to understand it.



> I'll have to parse that out and reconstruct that ridiculous pretzel so that everyone can easily see what you are really trying to say -- including the part you think ought to be a big "GOTCHA!" or an "AHAH!" moment.


Oh, I gotcha all right, and you know it.  You know very well that your inability to answer The Question proves your beliefs are false and evil.  You just have to refuse to know it.

----------


## Kluge

> That must be why many great thinkers, including many great economists, have embraced it.
> 
> No.  That's just some stupid, dishonest garbage you made up.
> 
> The land is not a product of anyone's work, and is therefore not anyone's rightful property.
> 
> It is indisputably the landowner who is the leech on the productive, as already proved many times.  You can easily prove it to yourself, by trying to answer The Question:
> 
> "How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"
> ...


It's stupid, dishonest garbage I made up? I've been looking at properties for over 3 weeks and will only buy a property that has the space for a grove of trees and berry bushes. You moron.

If I buy the land and do the work to make the land productive, it most certainly IS my rightful property, you commie.

You're an idiot.

----------


## Roy L

> It's stupid, dishonest garbage I made up?


That is correct.



> I've been looking at properties for over 3 weeks and will only buy a property that has the space for a grove of trees and berry bushes.


Were you under a mistaken impression that that would somehow change your false,stupid, and dishonest claims about my position into something else?



> You moron.


At a rough guess, I'd say I have about 40 IQ points on you.



> If I buy the land and do the work to make the land productive,


<yawn>  If the land wasn't *ALREADY* productive, why were you willing to pay so much money for it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?



> it most certainly IS my rightful property, you commie.


Like the pass is the bandit's rightful property because he bought it from some previous bandit, and "made it productive" by putting up a toll gate?

_THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries  or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in rent for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? Its all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And come to that, how is any other landowner, charging rent for what nature provided for free, any different?_



> You're an idiot.


Make that 50 IQ points.

----------


## Roy L

> *Zippy Juan's Problem:* Equal rights of all to use the same resource results in its damage and/or depletion.   (Tragedy of the Commons)
> *Roy's Solution:* Government must secure and reconcile equal rights to use of all to use it.  
> 
> The Tragedy of the Commons is caused by everyone _already having_ an equal, free right of common access to use of the same parcel of land, or common resource.


No, it is caused by those who DEPLETE a self-renewing common resource not being required to make just compensation to those whom they are depriving of equal access.  If the resource is not depleted, like the earth's atmosphere, or would not have renewed itself anyway, like a mineral deposit, there is no tragedy.  But there still IS a tragedy even if access is not equal or free, or the resouce is not common, as long as the exploitation rate exceeds the self-renewal rate, leading to reduced resource availability.  This can happen any time we follow the "grabbers get" principle of propertarian resource appropriation (preposterously called, "homesteading").  The Dust Bowl of the 1930s is a good example.  The land was all privately owned, but the private landowners over-exploited and ruined it just as surely as the users of the unmanaged common because they did not have to compensate the community for depleting the soil.

You clearly have not understood "The Tragedy of the Commons."



> Thus, on the surface, Roy's solution might appear to be a logical absurdity, as he seems to be advocating the very cause of the problem as a solution.


I just proved equal access *isn't* the cause of the problem.



> But that is not what Roy means when he says "_securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to use it_". 
> 
> The net effect of Roy's solution (as government's "legitimate function") is to forcibly remove equal access to all for use of Common Land.


False.  It *secures* equal access to limited exclusive use by removing unlimited private grabbing.



> What was once *equal access to all* becomes *exclusive access granted to one* (whomever is willing to pay the highest fee to the taxing jurisdiction that administers the land appropriated to it).


You know that exclusive access is necessary to secure valid property rights in fixed improvements, and you also certainly advocate "exclusive access granted to one," so that is not an argument.



> This can be somewhat misleading, because Roy's argument is for the privatization _of exclusive access_ to those same "public resources".  That wouldn't change. The only difference in either case (leasehold under LVT or freehold under landownership) is who is entitled to the economic rents - NOT the fact that exclusive access to the resource itself is granted and secured by the state to some paying entity, to the physical exclusion of all others.


You know that under private land appropriation, the entity the "paying entity" is paying for the exclusive access security service he gets from government is a previous private land appropriator, not government.  The previous private appropriator is therefore getting a welfare subsidy giveaway from government at the expense of the productive.



> Granting exclusive access to land to a single paying entity eliminates the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons,


Well, by definition it may no longer be a tragedy of "commons," but the tragedy of reduced total resource availability resulting from over-exploitation can still occur after privatization, as proved above.



> but creates a new problem, as everyone else is now physically, forcibly excluded or prevented from access to use of that same land.  Under Roy's paradigm, that is a "right" that is unalienable, and therefore infringed. This infringement is then reconciled (economically) by Roy's solution in two parts: 
> 
> In parsing what Roy wrote, note that he stated that government has a "_legitimate function of_ *securing* _and_ *reconciling* _the equal rights_ *of all to use it*." (three operative words). So government must: 
> 
> 1) secure the equal rights of all to use "it", and it must also
> 2) reconcile the rights of all to use "it".  
> 
> In the context of *securing the equal rights of all to use "it"*, Roy could not have meant securing actual physical access (to everyone) to that particular parcel of land. Exclusive access is already granted to a single entity, which necessarily precludes access/use of that parcel of land to everyone else, who are necessarily excluded. Thus, that parcel of land is no longer available for their use during the term of the leasehold (which can be a lifetime for many if the leasehold remains in force for a long enough term).  What cannot be physically "secured" as physical access must then be "reconciled" by compensation to individuals for a right that still exists but has been infringed - "reconciling" being the other operative word, through the unspoken-but-implied "just compensation".


I have stated explicitly, many times, that just compensation is required.  Other than that, the above is correct. 



> What Roy's proposal really boils down to are the mechanics of "*reconciling the rights of all to use it*" whenever they are infringed upon (by agreement between the state and the landholder through which exclusive use and access is granted). The solution and rationale of this reconciliation are two-fold, involving Land Value Tax (LVT) and Roy's Universal Individual Exemption (UIE).


Right again.



> Under Roy's paradigm, LVT paid to the taxing jurisdiction is the equivalent of paying everyone in that community who was deprived of any access or use of any land within that taxing jurisdiction.  However, that revenue is not paid to those individuals, and cannot be called just compensation to them to the extent that they do not receive it, as this revenue goes directly to the State, ostensibly to pay for government services and infrastructure that contributed, in part, to the value of land in the first place.


Right.  There are three ways LVT revenue can effectively be considered just compensation to all:

1. All have equal votes on how it is spent (though children get the UIE, they do not get to vote),
2. All gain equal, free, _exclusive_ access to enough land to live on, a benefit they would not otherwise have, and
3. To the extent that LVT revenue is spent on services and infrastructure people desire (which they will presumably vote for), it increases the benefit they gain through 2.



> Scarce lands are allocated, from most to least valued lands, not according to equal rights of all, but rather according to the willingness and ability on the parts of certain entities (individuals or others, regardless of their legal status) to pay the most to the taxing jurisdiction.  This satisfies the state's requirement for funding for services, infrastructure and other expenditures (some of which COULD, in theory, go individuals), but does not necessarily secure or reconcile any of the rights of those excluded from use or access to better lands held in common (for want of the  willingness and ability to pay more to the taxing jurisdiction).   That's where the UIE kicks in.*
> 
> The Universal Individual Exemption (UIE) would be granted to all individuals living within a taxing jurisdiction for the same amount to all that is said to be equal, according to Roy, for "enough good land to live on" (as defined by the state).


It would be to resident CITIZENS, and would be enough good land to live on as defined by a transparent statistical test (it doesn't matter very much exactly how that is done, you could even vote on it periodically).  The key point is that if it is too large, government will get less revenue than it can spend on services and infrastructure more efficiently than the private sector, while if it is too small, society will suffer problems consequent on poverty, which will occasion both loss of LVT revenue due to local blight and additional public expenditures on emergency services, health care, police, prisons, etc. larger than the revenue that would be foregone with a more generous UIE.



> That exemption could then be applied toward any land, thus making individuals exempt from paying for economic rents.


Up to the exempt amount.  Right.



> The UIE is the primary mechanism for direct *reconciliation* ("just compensation") for any losses suffered by individuals for having been excluded from use of other land parcels in that taxing jurisdiction.    
> 
> * Some LVT proponents propose actual dividends paid out to individuals  - the way Alaska does now with tax dividends paid on oil revenues, but that is not discussed as it is not part of Roy's version of policy proposals surrounding his version of LVT.


Right.  For a number of reasons, not least the temptation to corruption and abuse that cash payments always entail, I consider Citizens' Dividends a second-best alternative to the UIE.



> Aside from buyer/owner/holder expectations, actual market value is a forever transient phenomenon -- a dynamic variable that could be much more or much less than anyone's expectation - as anyone who bought in 2007 with long speculation in mind learned quickly enough as sellers made out like bandits while many buyers were turned upside down.  Likewise longterm leaseholdings in Hong Kong, the real market value of which always deviates from what the leaseholder expects to take as minimum value versus what the state expected to capture in land value.


Problems of unstable land value are greatly aggravated by speculative momentum, which LVT eliminates.

Thank you for an honest and thoughtful contribution.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> <yawn>  If the land wasn't *ALREADY* productive, why were you willing to pay so much money for it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?


Hmmmmmmm, let's see...could it be for the purpose of finally getting off the wealth-siphoning treadmill, insofar as possible, of perpetual rent-paying to any entity, public or private? Could that be it? Then again, you are not asking why someone would be willing to buy rather than lease or rent, but only the factors that lead to high prices for land, and why people willing to pay them. 

Your premise that "land" by itself is productive is kind of awkward - unless you're talking about the existence of ore in mines, oil in the ground, or the existence of fertilized soil in pristine agricultural land (all based on past "production" by nature). Or you could refer to active volcanoes and geysers and hotsprings and such, which do "already produce" something now.  Otherwise, it's not the land that is productive at all, but only the people thereon. And even that is not universal, and certainly does not explain the high price for all land.  

An increase in land's market value is based on a number of factors, including _private economic activity_, only some of which equates to "productivity". That's because not all economic activity is "productive".  In fact, much of the economic activity in today's rabbit hole economy is not productive at all.  And not all land is valued or purchased with eye toward its "productivity".  A massive amount of residential land is purchased with an eye toward consumption - not production, or productivity.  A wealthy person who buys a mansion on a cliff, or lakefront/beachfront property, does not pay a premium for that land based on its productivity, much of the value of which is determined by its scarcity.  




> And come to that, how is any other landowner, charging rent for what nature provided for free, any different?


Most reading that would think that you were making a narrowed reference to a landowner with a lease or rental agreement with an actual tenant. But that's not it at all, is it, Roy.  You see ALL landownership, in the absence of LVT, as "charging rent" to "the community".  You see the non-payment of economic land rents to "the community" by ALL landowners, regardless of their legal status or what they do (or don't do) with their land, as a "giveaway", or "community welfare subsidy" - or a "taking", or theft from "the community". It is that non-payment of economic rent to the community that you are referring to when you say "charging rent".  

Tough sell.

----------


## Roy L

> Hmmmmmmm, let's see...could it be for the purpose of finally getting off the wealth-siphoning treadmill, insofar as possible, of perpetual rent-paying to any entity, public or private? Could that be it?


One would assume so.  But remember, the producers' treadmill can only run because the private landowners' escalator, which the treadmill powers, also runs.  LVT stops the escalator, which stops the treadmill, turning them into a sturdy ramp and staircase that all may climb as fast and as far as their contributions take them, and none may ride up on without effort.



> Then again, you are not asking why someone would be willing to buy rather than lease or rent, but only the factors that lead to high prices for land, and why people willing to pay them.


Right.  Just pointing out that his claim of buying unproductive land was self-evidently self-refuting.



> Your premise that "land" by itself is productive is kind of awkward - unless you're talking about the existence of ore in mines, oil in the ground, or the existence of fertilized soil in pristine agricultural land (all based on past "production" by nature).


Equivocation fallacy.  Land does not produce by itself in the economic sense, but that's not what we mean by "productive land."  We mean land that will _enable_ greater production by the user with a given expenditure of labor and capital.  That quality is what the user does not create, but is willing to pay for.



> Or you could refer to active volcanoes and geysers and hotsprings and such, which do "already produce" something now.  Otherwise, it's not the land that is productive at all, but only the people thereon. And even that is not universal, and certainly does not explain the high price for all land.


See above.  While it is true that some land has high *exchange* value based on how its economic advantage is expected to increase in the future, *ALL* land that has a high *rental* value has it because of the economic advantage it offers the user _BEFORE HE HAS DONE ANYTHING WITH IT_.  That is what makes him willing to pay so much for the *opportunity* to use it.  



> An increase in land's market value is based on a number of factors, including _private economic activity_, only some of which equates to "productivity". That's because not all economic activity is "productive".  In fact, much of the economic activity in today's rabbit hole economy is not productive at all.  And not all land is valued or purchased with eye toward its "productivity".


Lose the scare quotes; they are a signal that equivocation fallacies are in the air.  The rental value of land is equal to the economic advantage it offers the user.  "Productivity" just refers to an agricultural frame of reference.



> A massive amount of residential land is purchased with an eye toward consumption - not production, or productivity.  A wealthy person who buys a mansion on a cliff, or lakefront/beachfront property, does not pay a premium for that land based on its productivity, much of the value of which is determined by its scarcity.


No.  We've been over this before.  Residential land is being used to produce *accommodation*, though it is often consumed by its producer, like food grown in a backyard garden.  The mansion on the cliff or waterfront recreational property would be able to generate additional revenue based on its location if it were a hotel or resort rather than a private residence.  Scarcity is simply the result of the demand for such locations.  Consider how scarce the land halfway down the cliff is.



> Most reading that would think that you were making a narrowed reference to a landowner with a lease or rental agreement with an actual tenant. But that's not it at all, is it, Roy.  You see ALL landownership, in the absence of LVT, as "charging rent" to "the community".


It's taking benefits that would otherwise be available.



> You see the non-payment of economic land rents to "the community" by ALL landowners, regardless of their legal status or what they do (or don't do) with their land, as a "giveaway", or "community welfare subsidy" - or a "taking", or theft from "the community". It is that non-payment of economic rent to the community that you are referring to when you say "charging rent".


Right.  Does it make any difference if the bandit/landowner transports the goods through the pass for a fee equivalent to the rent plus the transportation cost the merchants would have incurred anyway?  The farmer/landowner is likewise depriving everyone else of the opportunity to farm the good land, and pocketing the resulting increase in his production.

----------


## Kluge

40 IQ points on me, eh?

I'm not vain about much, but I gots me some brains. And you are arguing for a hunter-gatherer society, so far as I can tell. Fine for you--get to it. Me, I'll buy my property (and it's not that expensive because it isn't productive), and make it productive. I'll teach my daughter about botany and self-reliance all in her back yard.

And you'll still be a giant turd whittler.

----------


## Roy L

> 40 IQ points on me, eh?


That's right.  Maybe 50.



> I'm not vain about much, but I gots me some brains.


Enough to spew stupid, dishonest garbage on the Internet, anyway.



> And you are arguing for a hunter-gatherer society, so far as I can tell.


Your second sentence pretty much puts the lie to your first.



> Me, I'll buy my property (and it's not that expensive because it isn't productive),


<yawn>  Then why pay anything at all for it?  On what basis are you even choosing one site over another, if it's not productive?  If the land's productivity is going to come from you, and not from government, the community or nature, why not just take the cheapest plot for sale in the area where you want to live, and make it as productive as you want?



> and make it productive.


No; you might at some point produce something on it (stranger things have happened) but it had to be productive already before you would be interested in it.  And you know it.



> And you'll still be a giant turd whittler.


How special for you.  As in, "Olympics."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> stupid, dishonest garbage


lol

----------

