# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  In communist counties, unemployment is eliminated!

## DEGuy

Sarcasm. I'm just getting sick and tired of listening to politicians continually saying that jobs are the big issue, and unemployment is too high, and we need to do "whatever it takes to get Americans back to work." None of that matters if these "jobs" don't even provide a livable wage and those people still need to rely somewhat on welfare to get by. Whenever I hear a politician talking about jobs, I want to blurt out, "Well, communist countries have solved this problem!" But I think the deeper point would be lost on them. Shouldn't the real goal be to make America more competitive and efficient on a global scale? Countries that invest in their industrial base and education have historically seen booms in prosperity for everyone. Now, I'm NOT saying the government should be doing the investing, but they should at least stay out of the way of people who want to invest in long-term projects. Or stop building up a bubble in education that raises the prices for everyone and creates the incorrect impression that a degree in anything is worth the investment.

----------


## EcoWarrier

In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable. Why?  There was no harmful speculation in *Land* and its *Resouces* that causes booms and busts and world-wide crashes.

A salient lesson to be learned from that economic system.  We must ensure our free-market economic systems do the same.  It is easy to do.

----------


## cubical

I will run on a platform of 100% employment by banning trade of any kind with anyone. Everyone must grow their own food, build their own house, make their own clothes. It will be paradise, trust me!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable. Why?  There was no harmful speculation in *Land* and its *Resouces* that causes booms and busts and world-wide crashes.
> 
> A salient lesson to be learned from that economic system.  We must ensure our free-market economic systems do the same.  It is easy to do.


What in the world are you talking about?

----------


## Kluge

> What in the world are you talking about?


A whole lot of bull$#@!. Two fellows, EcoWarrier and RoyL, have targeted us for conversion to their bizarre Geoist cult.

----------


## awake

There was no such thing as unemployment in chattel slavery either.

----------


## Indy Vidual

In communist counties, Freedom is eliminated!

----------


## row333au

Because from childhood to senility you're forced to work for the one and only corporate in monopoly as your freedom of selective choice to work and buy from... as with all other unemployed are concentrated in camps. Also all things are free as long as its what the ruling party is willing to give you in return for more prolong sacrifices for the masters of the leaderships to keep them in dictators role, in ultra-wealth and excessive exorbitant immoral laps of luxuries.

----------


## The Goat

> What in the world are you talking about?


He's just one of those idiots that think eliminating speculation would fix everything. I think he watched to much O'riley when gas prices got around 4 dollars a few years ago.

----------


## DEGuy

> There was no such thing as unemployment in chattel slavery either.


Exactly. If anything, an accurate measure of a nation's economy should be based on the number of people who are able to provide themselves with the basic commodities - food, shelter, and clothes without assistance. That's regardless of whether or not they have a job.

----------


## AME3

You need to aquaint yourself with Walden pond by Thoreau, and after that, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Trust me, you won't regret it my friend.


> Because from childhood to senility you're forced to work for the one and only corporate in monopoly as your freedom of selective choice to work and buy from... as with all other unemployed are concentrated in camps. Also all things are free as long as its what the ruling party is willing to give you in return for more prolong sacrifices for the masters of the leaderships to keep them in dictators role, in ultra-wealth and excessive exorbitant immoral laps of luxuries.

----------


## mrsat_98

> In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable. Why?  There was no harmful speculation in *Land* and its *Resouces* that causes booms and busts and world-wide crashes.
> 
> A salient lesson to be learned from that economic system.  We must ensure our free-market economic systems do the same.  It is easy to do.


You failed to include  the communist United States.




> In communist counties, Freedom is eliminated!


exactly just look around.

----------


## row333au

> You need to aquaint yourself with Walden pond by Thoreau, and after that, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Trust me, you won't regret it my friend.





> “The truth knocks on your door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away.”


- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.... 

read also Peter Richelieu - A Soul's Journey Mysteries of Life and Afterlife .... and George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984

and Walden is very known for the transcendentalist philosophy of the inherent goodness of both man and nature

Now at this times of obvious tyranny from patterns within the government's fascist policies, one must give awareness to the realities of what can become as not to trust complacent for the good of humanity, in order not to regret what bad things could have befallen to all friends....

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable. Why?


 I don't really care why there was no unemployment in Communist countries. (I'm pretty sure there still was).
What I do care about is what I will receive in return for the labor that I've invested, and more importantly, what I can buy with that.
The work itself, I could care less about. You work for a reward, you don't work to work. At least I don't.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What in the world are you talking about?


http://www.foldvary.net/works/rebc.htmlLand is essential for all production.In any particular economic region, the supply of land is inelastic; it has a fixed supply.When a boom is underway, the anticipated increase in land values induces speculators to buy it for price appreciation rather than for present use, which causes its current value to rise above that warranted by present use.Once wide-spread *speculation* sets in, *land values are carried beyond the point at which enterprises can make a profit* after paying for rent or mortgages. Production slows down, reducing aggregate demand. The slowdown ripples through the economy, *increasing unemployment and bringing forth a depression*.After land prices and rents drop, the normal rent and land prices are restored, increasing the profitability of enterprise. The economy recovers. [the boom-bust cycle]
..
..
depressions were preceded by booms and land speculation, "followed by symptoms of checked production" 
..
..
the paradox of idle labor and capital in the depths of a depression. The reason the market was not clearing was that labor and capital were cut off from the necessary natural opportunities offered by land.
..
..
the construction industry is a "transmission mechanism" by which the land market impacts "the factory, office and corner retail store." A key aspect of this mechanism is the tendency to overbuild during a *land-speculation boom, followed by a long interval of depressed building.
*
------------

*The way to stop harmful land speculation*....Have a tax based on the values of land, all land. Not the buildings on it, just the land. The tax automatically adjusts itself to the market, so need for constant government interference setting fixed rates. Eliminate Income Tax and Sales Tax and the individual has more freedom.

Land Value Taxation achieves many objectives:
It prevents speculation in land & its resourcesIt raises public revenue justly in a manner which does not penalize business, enterprise or laborIt maintains justice from one generation to the nextit evens-out the differences between those who own the most valuable land and those who own land of little value or none at all

----------


## Kluge

> http://www.foldvary.net/works/rebc.html
> Land is essential for all production.In any particular economic region, the supply of land is inelastic; it has a fixed supply.When a boom is underway, the anticipated increase in land values induces speculators to buy it for price appreciation rather than for present use, which causes its current value to rise above that warranted by present use.Once wide-spread *speculation* sets in, *land values are carried beyond the point at which enterprises can make a profit* after paying for rent or mortgages. Production slows down, reducing aggregate demand. The slowdown ripples through the economy, *increasing unemployment and bringing forth a depression*.After land prices and rents drop, the normal rent and land prices are restored, increasing the profitability of enterprise. The economy recovers. [the boom-bust cycle]
> ..
> ..
> depressions were preceded by booms and land speculation, "followed by symptoms of checked production" 
> ..
> ..
> the paradox of idle labor and capital in the depths of a depression. The reason the market was not clearing was that labor and capital were cut off from the necessary natural opportunities offered by land.
> ..
> ...


Lol! I really, really want to see you convince LibertyEagle of your bull$#@!.

This should be fun.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I don't really care why there was no unemployment in Communist countries. (I'm pretty sure there still was).
> What I do care about is what I will receive in return for the labor that I've invested, and more importantly, what I can buy with that.
> The work itself, I could care less about. You work for a reward, you don't work to work. At least I don't.


Communist economies had no booms & busts as harmful land speculation was eliminated.  It is indisputable that speculation in land and its resources causes booms & busts, depressions and world-wide crashes.  There was no massed unemployment or booms & busts in Communist economic systems as we have. Contrary to what people believe here, in some Communist societies you could leave your job and join another organization freely.

It is how to get this stability the Communist economic system had into our own free-market system. See post number 15.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Lol! I really, really want to see you convince LibertyEagle of your bull$#@!.


This so-called bull$#@! was written by Professor Foldvary. Link given. *It is merely a tax shift.*  Nothing else.  It gives us more freedom.  More freedom over our economic affairs.

Open your mind. Understand. It is easier that way.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Communist economies had no booms & busts as harmful land speculation was eliminated. There was no massed unemployment as we have. Contrary to what people believe here, in some Communist societies you could leave your job and join another organization freely.
> 
> It is how to get this stability the Communist economic system had into our own free-market system. See post number 15.


Thank you for your response, but you evaded my point. 
It is not employment that makes you happy, it is the products that this employment can bring you, through various means.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Thank you for your response, but you evaded my point. 
> It is not employment that makes you happy, it is the products that this employment can bring you, through various means.


That is a valid point. But you have swayed. 

You need employment to acquire the consumer products.You need economic stability to ensure employment.

Number 2 is essential to reach Number 1.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> That is a valid point. But you have swayed. 
> 
> You need employment to acquire the consumer products.You need economic stability.
> 
> Number 2 is essential to reach Number 1.


Is there such a thing as economic stability ? 
There are many variables that impact the economy, such as the weather. 
There will always be fluctuations in the economy, the only way to have a stable economy is to have none. 

Now I won't argue with you that you don't need employment in order to produce consumer goods. But a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for the job market to function. In a free market, a company could not expand if there was no labor available. The only way to expand was to take labor away from another company, by force, but then it's no longer a free market, but a centrally planned one.

The high unemployment numbers are due to government subsidization of unemployment, taxes that are too high for employers to hire, too many regulations that further complicate hiring people etc.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Is there such a thing as economic stability ? 
> There are many variables that impact the economy, such as the weather. 
> There will always be fluctuations in the economy, the only way to have a stable economy is to have none.


There is no such thing as a stable economy in the medium to long term in the western version we have now - neo-classical. We have to revert to classical with the Single Tax of LVT as its core.

The only way to attempt to get stability in the current setup is by touch control, using instant data via computers, etc. Gordon Brown as finance minister of the UK was probably the best at this with the UK economy. Gordon Brown upturned how the Treasury Dept worked. A new building, new computer systems, new system in general. New ethos. This gives the strings to pull to touch control. 

Brown took the country from a basket case into one of the world's strongest economies. The pound was the world strongest currency for about 10 years. The UK had zero unemployment with over a million migrant workers ina popn of 60 million to fuel the booming economy.

Brown raised and lowered interest rates, money supply etc to keep an even keel, virtually by the week. In reality it is no more than shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic as the iceberg loomed. The ship was going to sink come what may.  Because the base of the system we use is flawed.  Speculation of LAND and its RESOURCES is not checked. The unstable base is always shifting.




> Now I won't argue with you that you don't need employment in order to produce consumer goods. But a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for the job market to function.


That is Chicago School of Economics madness you are spurting.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> That is Chicago School of Economics madness you are spurting.


 Maybe, but it's correct. 




> Brown took the country from a basket case into one of the world's strongest economies. The pound was the world strongest currency for about 10 years. The UK had zero unemployment with *over a million migrant workers ina popn* of 60 million to fuel the booming economy.


Well then there still are unemployed people, but they are coming from elsewhere. 
Fact is, you need people looking for work, in order to fill positions, they don't magically appear. I don't know how you could deny this. 




> There is no such thing as a stable economy in the medium to long term in the western version we have now - neo-classical. We have to revert to classical with the Single Tax of LVT as its core.


Who decides what land is worth ?
Is all land taxed at the same rate ?

This tax scheme provides the government with a steady revenue stream possibly, but that does not bring the economy exactly anywhere.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Maybe, but it's correct.


The Chicago School of Economics theorises are madness> They rig the Free-market by rigging one of the factors of production *LABOR*.




> Who decides what land is worth ?
> Is all land taxed at the same rate ?


The free-market decides what land is worth. Under LVT, Land is taxed by its VALUE. It goes up so does the tax. It goes down, so does the tax.

----------


## Demigod

> In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable. Why?  There was no harmful speculation in *Land* and its *Resouces* that causes booms and busts and world-wide crashes.
> 
> A salient lesson to be learned from that economic system.  We must ensure our free-market economic systems do the same.  It is easy to do.


I call bull$#@! because I have lived in socialism ( there has never been a communist country in history ) and there were economical busts all the time.Having a central economy is all about speculating.For example I remember the government deducted from the paycheck of every worker an amount so to build a steel factory that end up costing around a billion dollars.That steel factory has been always in a deficit.They are selling it now for no more than 50 million $ with just an obligation to keep the workers of 1000 people ( that factory in full production needs 2500+ ) and there is not a single businessman that is interested.

If that is not a bust I don't know what is.The only difference is that they covered the losses by printing money which in turn lead to inflation or took money out of profitable companies.If they did not print  than there were shortages. I remember when there were  fuel shortages so gasoline was rationed and you were allowed only to drive every second day.Not to mention all the other shortages like coffee,cooking oil and such stuff.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I call bull$#@! because I have lived in socialism ( there has never been a communist country in history ) and there were economical busts all the time.Having a central economy is all about speculating.For example I remember the government deducted from the paycheck of every worker an amount so to build a steel factory that end up costing around a billion dollars.That steel factory has been always in a deficit.They are selling it now for no more than 50 million $ with just an obligation to keep the workers of 1000 people ( that factory in full production needs 2500+ ) and there is not a single businessman that is interested.
> 
> If that is not a bust I don't know what is.The only difference is that they covered the losses by printing money which in turn lead to inflation or took money out of profitable companies.If they did not print  than there were shortages. I remember when there were  fuel shortages so gasoline was rationed and you were allowed only to drive every second day.Not to mention all the other shortages like coffee,cooking oil and such stuff.


Come along now comrade, this is only because of the foolish ones who made it impossible for the politbureau to carry out our most excellent plan for our labor and resources!  Haven't you learned by now that the answer is always _more_ central planning not less?  We may need you to come to supplemental re-education comerade.  Only one change of clothes, we will provide you a uniform comrade!  /s

----------


## DEGuy

> Communist economies had no booms & busts as harmful land speculation was eliminated.  It is indisputable that speculation in land and its resources causes booms & busts, depressions and world-wide crashes.  There was no massed unemployment or booms & busts in Communist economic systems as we have. Contrary to what people believe here, in some Communist societies you could leave your job and join another organization freely.
> 
> It is how to get this stability the Communist economic system had into our own free-market system. See post number 15.


Actually, in the so-called capitalistic Western countries, most of the booms and busts are caused by government intervention. The busts just come more often because those governments don't have enough power yet to keep fueling the boom.

----------


## Origanalist

> Lol! I really, really want to see you convince LibertyEagle of your bull$#@!.
> 
> This should be fun.


(Bursts out laughing.)  Me too.

----------


## Henry Rogue

What good is full employment, if there is nothing to buy? For that matter what good are higher wages, if there is nothing to buy? All work and no produce makes jack a poor boy.

----------


## The Goat

So what happens when someone doesn't have the money to pay their land tax? 

If you think that only taxing land will some how prevent people from speculating its future value...I just don't know what to tell you. I would rather prevent the easy credit that fueled the speculation on land. But hey, why fix the problem when you can keep shoving your pet projects down peoples throats telling it will solve everything.

----------


## blustreeak

"In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable."
Wow. Just, wow. I am not as intelligent or well read as many on this forum are, but I have travelled to post-communist countries. The general agreement among those who lived under communism was that it sucked. It sucked really bad. There was not "no unemploymnet" either, that was just state propoganda.  People were unemployed, they became thieves, criminals, and underclass of the underclass. People were hungry, malnourished, desperate, and became mean. Those people who lived under that system don't trust anything or anyone anymore. Maybe you disagree with speculation or you want a tax on land. Whatever. But don't try and glamorize communism.  Their economic system made EVERYBODY $#@!ED. No hope, no money, no future, just misery and among the men a heavy dependency on alcohol.

----------


## AME3

Yes, that 's what my family on my moms side who lived in E Germany under the Russians said. The commies always murder millions which helps to lower the number of unemployed, duh. Anyone that thinks communism is good is a damn fool and needs to leave.


> "In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable."
> Wow. Just, wow. I am not as intelligent or well read as many on this forum are, but I have travelled to post-communist countries. The general agreement among those who lived under communism was that it sucked. It sucked really bad. There was not "no unemploymnet" either, that was just state propoganda.  People were unemployed, they became thieves, criminals, and underclass of the underclass. People were hungry, malnourished, desperate, and became mean. Those people who lived under that system don't trust anything or anyone anymore. Maybe you disagree with speculation or you want a tax on land. Whatever. But don't try and glamorize communism.  Their economic system made EVERYBODY $#@!ED. No hope, no money, no future, just misery and among the men a heavy dependency on alcohol.

----------


## jbauer

Oh boy.  I think you've stumbled into the wrong forum.  Try googleing communist forums or something.  You're not going to convince 1 single person to change their stance even 0.00000000001%




> Communist economies had no booms & busts as harmful land speculation was eliminated.  It is indisputable that speculation in land and its resources causes booms & busts, depressions and world-wide crashes.  There was no massed unemployment or booms & busts in Communist economic systems as we have. Contrary to what people believe here, in some Communist societies you could leave your job and join another organization freely.
> 
> It is how to get this stability the Communist economic system had into our own free-market system. See post number 15.

----------


## idiom

> http://www.foldvary.net/works/rebc.htmlLand is essential for all production.In any particular economic region, the supply of land is inelastic; it has a fixed supply.When a boom is underway, the anticipated increase in land values induces speculators to buy it for price appreciation rather than for present use, which causes its current value to rise above that warranted by present use.Once wide-spread *speculation* sets in, *land values are carried beyond the point at which enterprises can make a profit* after paying for rent or mortgages. Production slows down, reducing aggregate demand. The slowdown ripples through the economy, *increasing unemployment and bringing forth a depression*.After land prices and rents drop, the normal rent and land prices are restored, increasing the profitability of enterprise. The economy recovers. [the boom-bust cycle]
> ..
> ..
> depressions were preceded by booms and land speculation, "followed by symptoms of checked production" 
> ..
> ..
> the paradox of idle labor and capital in the depths of a depression. The reason the market was not clearing was that labor and capital were cut off from the necessary natural opportunities offered by land.
> ..
> ..
> ...


Step 1 is incorrect. Land is not essential for all production.

It is essential for some types of mining. That's about it. Otherwise it would be logically impossible to produce anything at sea, in space or in the air.

You need a new step 1.

----------


## TheGrinch

> In communist counties, Freedom is eliminated!


In communist russia, freedom eliminates you!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Step 1 is incorrect. Land is not essential for all production.
> 
> It is essential for some types of mining. That's about it. Otherwise it would be logically impossible to produce anything at sea, in space or in the air.
> 
> You need a new step 1.


LMAO way to eliminate the entire argument in one fell swoop -- nullify the fundamental premise.  Good job!

----------


## jbauer

> LMAO way to eliminate the entire argument in one fell swoop -- nullify the fundamental premise.  Good job!


No no fundamental premise still stands.  Now we can have what a 150% employment rate.  Just think how great of a communist nation we could have with 150% employment.  1.5x the work for 1x the money!!!

----------


## rpwi

> Step 1 is incorrect. Land is not essential for all production.
> 
> It is essential for some types of mining. That's about it. Otherwise it would be logically impossible to produce anything at sea, in space or in the air.
> 
> You need a new step 1.


I don't think that is fair.  The land question is a legit one, in that land is not a typical factor of production. It is zero-sum and we are entirely dependent upon having some access to it to survive.  Now certainly we can decrease our dependence on land through technology, labor, capital and efficient utilization, but we can not eliminate it.  

Now land would not be an issue if it's distribution was done equally (a tricky thing).

A simple Robinson Crusoe aptly illustrates the issue.  If one shipwrecked sailer lands on a island first, lays claim to the island...can he in essence enslave a subsequent sailer in the name of private property?  The sailer must have water and food to survive...and if he has but labor to offer...he will end up working more than the first sailer for the same rewards...just because the first sailer arrived first and is able to trade land for labor.  Just?

This is an irritate to standard economic thought and creates quite the predicament. Supply and demand does not work like to should when the factor of production is zero-sum. Increased demand will not result in increased supply.  So a price point is set by which bargaining power takes over as the chief price determinant.  Bargaining power in turn is set by the scale of the bargaining party (size of the labor union or corporation) and by the ability of one party to 'go on strike' or 'fire workers'/'sit on idle capacity'.  To a certain degree this is constantly happening...but it can feed back on itself and occur in great scale.

Now the issue is diagnosing how significant the land problem is and what the appropriate solutions.  The growth in non-land factors of production can mitigate to some extent our dependence on land.  As can a disproportionate control over credit as land in turn is dependent upon money to be utilized in our economy.  I'm not sure that land is a significant factor now (I could be wrong) as it appears most businesses that depend largely on land as a factor production (like farming) are dominated by banks and high finance.  It is they and not really the landowners who are reaping the benefits of the land.

The communist idea isn't a solution.  Shared ownership of all means of production and shared ownership of the fruits of production.  In such a system political signals would replace market signals as the primary determinate of distribution.  Political signals are too inefficient to determine supply and demand.  We saw this in the Soviet Union (which granted wasn't communist) in which the Soviets were quite good at making steel!   ...but not so good at making scissors as it is quite difficult for a centralized economy to determine the production of end-user goods and tools without market signals.  You can blindly make a lot of steel and get away with it...you can't really do the same thing with more complicated components and tools.  It is the lack of information that really is the issue with communism...especially in a high tech society.  So this is no cure for the land issue.

With socialism you have shared ownership of the means of production and private ownership of the fruits of production.  Problem again is information...without the market determining investment, political decisions have to determine what industries get what investment.  Flashy industries will get lots of state support while say an obscure bolt company will get neglected (this happened in the Soviet Union).  This too fails to address the land issue.

Geoism thusly advocates a land tax, but this too is oddly premised.  The geoist proclaims that gold in the ground is scarce and thus subject to a Land Tax...but thus once removed from the ground or mixed with labor it it 'taken off the radar'.  If there exist 1000 pounds of gold in on a planet...  Why does the geoist tax only the 500 pounds of gold that still has dirt on it?  Why tax the trees on your land but not the trees in your building?  The political problem is still quite the issue with the geoist as it was with the socialist and communist.  With the geoist, you have a large amount of wealth in the hands of a few politicians.  "Obvious" name-brand causes that have a catchy label will receive the money inefficiently while more subtle but no less important areas of the economy will not.  The geoist LVT does not address other ills in the economy (like FRB profits) and to the extent it doesn't, it will always overtax land.  Further more...if land is the issue...then why does the geoist  charge the tax in money?  The landowner can simply raise rent as the core bargaining power issues have not been adequately raised.  To a certain degree the government becomes the greedy land baron who charges merciless rent that the geoist decries.  Lastly the geoist can largely target the wrong person.  If land baron X is awarded unjustly Y land and then he sells that land to land-less buyer A for dollars...then is it just to tax the landowner?  He purchased it with money!  While the landowner 'purchased' the land for political considerations and sold it for money.  He is the true parasite, yet he would not be taxed on cent with a LVT.

As for land being the primary cause of the business cycle, I do not believe this to be the case.  The correlation is much stronger that FRB and it's ability to over-invest in good times and to go bankrupt in bad times is the true culprit.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So what happens when someone doesn't have the money to pay their land tax?


The same as when you do not pay taxes now.




> If you think that only taxing land will some how prevent people from speculating its future value...I just don't know what to tell you.


Understand what was written. All land is taxed by its value.  You can hoard land but you pay LVT. Most will find it not wort it so will sell the land to someone who uses it productively or use it productively themselves.

When LVT was introduced in Denmark land speculation virtually stopped redirecting money into enterprise. Taiwan increased its LVT rate as land was being hoarded.  The land was soon put to productive use.

Wherever LVT is used harmful land speculation is vastly reduced or stopped.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> ]"In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable."[/B]
> 
> The general agreement among those who lived under communism was that it sucked. It sucked really bad.


That is true.  But stable it was.  No land fuled boom amd busts. This stability the west needs.  It is easy to do as I have have outlined for you.

< snip stuff about how bad Communism is, which we all know >

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Oh boy.  I think you've stumbled into the wrong forum.


It is best you read what was written and understand it, instead of displaying political conditioning.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Step 1 is incorrect. Land is not essential for all production.


You knowledge of basic economics is near zero.

Factors of production:

1. LAND and its RESOUCES
2. CAPITAL
3. LABOR

*ALL THREE* have to be applied to produce.  Basic stuff.

----------


## Kluge

We're making an offer on 10 acres tomorrow, and neither RoyL or EcoWarrier are invited to come over and visit.

----------


## Origanalist

> We're making an offer on 10 acres tomorrow, and neither RoyL or EcoWarrier are invited to come over and visit.


Not even for a bbq? I'm sure they would be the life of the party..................

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The geoist proclaims that gold in the ground is scarce and thus subject to a Land Tax...but thus once removed from the ground or mixed with labor it it 'taken off the radar'.  If there exist 1000 pounds of gold in on a planet...  Why does the geoist tax only the 500 pounds of gold that still has dirt on it?


Gold in the land is ore. Not made by man. Given by nature.  This is COMMON  WEALTH.  Apply CAPITAL & LABOR in removing the ore from the ground and gold becomes CAPITAL.  That is simple and basic economics.

Geoists charge tax for the ore. Once the gold as CAPITAL is sold on, no tax is applied. Geoism taxes the VALUES of land and resources in their raw state.  Also the electromagnetic spectrum.  Which in some countries is sold via an auction to cell phone companies. Using radio & TV, the broadcaster pays.

Geoism does not tax trees, only the unimproved LAND VALUE.  All simple to understand.

Geoism does not direct wealth into the hands of a few, either a government or private - quite the opposite.  It *fairly* distributes the proceeds of a society's production. Those who work hard get rewarded.  The lazy get nothing.

LVT does not overtax land.  You made that up.

*LVT is a simple TAX SHIFT only!!!*  All else stays the same. Land ownership and sales of land title. Business behavior stays the same.  LVT as the SINGLE TAX, mean business is more efficient as there is no tax administration. Enterprise flourishes as there is no Income or Sales tax - which are taxes on production and trade.

----------


## Kluge

> Not even for a bbq? I'm sure they would be the life of the party..................


Not even for a BBQ! They'll end up squatting on my damn land! I'd have to keep poking the bastards with a stick to get 'em the hell off.

They'd steal all mah stuff because they think I didn't work for it or some bull$#@!. Probably steal my kid too, since she's a "product" of the land...who the hell knows how far they take this crap.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Not even for a bbq? I'm sure they would be the life of the party..................


For sure. I am a great song and dance man.   At least this land will be used for something productive instead of being hoarded.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> They'd steal all mah stuff because they think I didn't work for it or some bull$#@!.


You are not a very bright man.

----------


## Kluge

> You are not a very bright man.


Haha. You think I'm serious, and a man. Dumbass.

----------


## blustreeak

How are food shortages "stable"?

----------


## Carson

_"In communist counties, unemployment is eliminated!"_ 

But so is the desire to work hard for a living. 

At least that is what my Mom used to say. She said that is what would kill it. "If everyone got an equal share of everything, why work hard?"

It has even turned out to be true with the back-door stealth system of socialism we have. Even though most don't even realize it, the stealth socialism has sucked the system so dry that, not only is working hard losing its luster, but it has become impossible for many to still live on what they can earn for a living. 

I'm talking about centuries old business models that almost stood the test of time, no longer being able to operate.

That still didn't come out clear enough.

Businesses all over the world that were sound can no longer bear the burden of the counterfeiting of the money supplies.


So why work hard. Or at all?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I would rather prevent the easy credit that fueled the speculation on land.


That is treating the symptom not the root cause.

----------


## Carson

> We're making an offer on 10 acres tomorrow, and neither RoyL or EcoWarrier are invited to come over and visit.


Congratulations! And I wish you luck *Kluge*.

That is big enough that if you stand in the middle, no matter how mad you get, you can throw a rock as hard as you can and still hit only your own land. 

Maybe a garden, maybe a horse, maybe a crop? And all at the same time and still have room for a house, a garage car hole, and a barn.

I'm not sure how your ten is lain out but I've seen all I listed above fit on five acres at the same time.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> _"In communist counties, unemployment is eliminated!"_ 
> 
> But so is the desire to work hard for a living.


That is where Geoism scores brilliantly.  As the SINGLE TAX, there is Income or Sales Tax.  *You keep all your earn.*  The state does not steal it from you.

----------


## Origanalist

> Haha. You think I'm serious, and a man. Dumbass.


Of course he thought you were serious. What did you expect?

----------


## Kluge

> Congratulations! And I wish you luck *Kluge*.
> 
> That is big enough that if you stand in the middle, no matter how mad you get you can throw as hard as you can and still hit your own land. 
> 
> Maybe a garden, maybe a horse, maybe a crop? And all at the same time and still have room for a house, a garage car hole, and a barn.
> 
> I'm not sure how your ten is lain out but I've seen all I listed about fit on five acres at the same time.


It's got an elaborate chicken coop, already built! Omelets for everyone (except RoyL and EcoWarrier.)

----------


## idiom

> I don't think that is fair.  The land question is a legit one, in that land is not a typical factor of production. It is zero-sum and we are entirely dependent upon having some access to it to survive.  Now certainly we can decrease our dependence on land through technology, labor, capital and efficient utilization, but we can not eliminate it.  
> 
> A simple Robinson Crusoe aptly illustrates the issue.  If one shipwrecked sailer lands on a island first, lays claim to the island...can he in essence enslave a subsequent sailer in the name of private property?  The sailer must have water and food to survive...and if he has but labor to offer...he will end up working more than the first sailer for the same rewards...just because the first sailer arrived first and is able to trade land for labor.  Just?


'

Both of the persons in your example were surviving just fine without land until they failed to maintain their property.

Thus they get to simply seize the property of others? What happens when they destroy the ability of that to sustain them?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Yes, that 's what my family on my moms side who lived in E Germany under the Russians said. The commies always murder millions which helps to lower the number of unemployed, duh. Anyone that thinks communism is good is a damn fool and needs to leave.


I would rather be unemployed than dead, but that doesn't make there stats look good. To bad for the Masses. What a horrible concept.

----------


## Carson

This lady told me she was from a communist country.

I told her, "I surrender".




Sounds a whole lot like home. Does it not?

----------


## rpwi

> Gold in the land is ore. Not made by man. Given by nature.  This is COMMON  WEALTH.  Apply CAPITAL & LABOR in removing the ore from the ground and gold becomes CAPITAL.  That is simple and basic economics.
> 
> Geoists charge tax for the ore. Once the gold as CAPITAL is sold on, no tax is applied. Geoism taxes the VALUES of land and resources in their raw state.  Also the electromagnetic spectrum.  Which in some countries is sold via an auction to cell phone companies. Using radio & TV, the broadcaster pays.
> 
> Geoism does not tax trees, only the unimproved LAND VALUE.  All simple to understand.


I understand how land can be mixed with labor.  Some define capital as stored labor...some as stored labor + land...that isn't wholly relevant.  The issue is if land was unique and scarce before it was mixed with labor and thus justifies a special tax, then why is it worth less so after labor is mixed with it?  How do you define labor?  If I have a witch doctor bless my land and I pay him money to do that...does that mean I don't have to pay taxes on my land anymore?  If I build a nice fence around my land, I've improved it by adding labor.  Does that mean the land now is 'capital' and thus exempt to LVT.  I suspect your differentiation between land and capital is more so in regards to if the land is subdivided into transportable pieces and/or there is a demonstration that sections of land can be readily transportable.  This of course has no bearing though on the core LVT argument that land justifiies a special tax based on its zero-sum attributes and/or it's independent supply in proportion to labor.   If there is a gold nugget sitting on private land at what point is it exempt from taxation?  When it is physically picked up and put in the house?  When it is merely touched?  To a certain degree land's value is proportionate to its ability to increase the production of labor.  Such value is not diminished when mixed with labor, so it makes no sense unless for the sake of simple bookkeeping to differentiate land and land mixed with labor.




> Geoism does not direct wealth into the hands of a few, either a government or private - quite the opposite.  It *fairly* distributes the proceeds of a society's production. Those who work hard get rewarded.  The lazy get nothing.


It does so by the government becoming a landbaron of all private land and merely taking its cut.  Those without, will have to pay more as they will have to pay the landbaron AND the government.  Without addressing bargaining power, taxes on the means of production create an inflationary spiral.




> LVT does not overtax land.  You made that up.


It's simple logic.  Say there was a 'true tax rate' which magically determined who and how much would pay to the state based on individual contributions/labor.  Such a rate was applied to 'true public expenditures' like police.  This true tax rate would take multiple factors into account.  Sure land might be one...but whether somebody robbed another might be another factor.  Because of these non-land factors (like FRB theft) a land tax could in now way exclusively constitution such a 'true tax rate'.  Therefore if LVT were to be applied exclusively, this means that other factors would not be taxed (again like profits from FRB which is theft).  In order for the government to obtain its amount of revenue desired it will have to thus over-tax landowners in excess of their privileged rent.  




> *LVT is a simple TAX SHIFT only!!!*  All else stays the same. Land ownership and sales of land title. Business behavior stays the same.  LVT as the SINGLE TAX, mean business is more efficient as there is no tax administration. Enterprise flourishes as there is no Income or Sales tax - which are taxes on production and trade.


One type of tax administration would vanish but another would flourish.  Given the scale of LVT, the role of tax accessors would be increased astronomically and proportionately politicized.  Corrupt assessors would be elected and we would have a fine mess on our hands.  If the tax is local, we'll see capital flight to low LVT areas.  Furthermore real-estate transactions will be churned (sold internally) to manipulate what property is assessed for.  People and individual's will quickly spot your 'mixed labor' exemption and thus 'mix' labor onto their land to take it off the tax books.  One mess would be replaced with another.  Now I'm not entirely opposed to utilizing LVT as a factor in financing government...but to rely on it exclusively could create extremes, not address core land distribution (or more accurately the benefits conferred from privileged land control) and not address government spending as a source of economic inefficiency and waste (just as land mal-distribution is).

----------


## idiom

> You knowledge of basic economics is near zero.
> 
> Factors of production:
> 
> 1. LAND and its RESOUCES
> 2. CAPITAL
> 3. LABOR
> 
> *ALL THREE* have to be applied to produce.  Basic stuff.


If I don't own, lease, rent or occupy any land, but am producing things, is it magic?

----------


## showpan

> He's just one of those idiots that think eliminating speculation would fix everything. I think he watched to much O'riley when gas prices got around 4 dollars a few years ago.


Sorry to inform you, but as long as some billionaire is able to buy up all existing quantities of whatever "necessities" are needed in todays society, there can be no such thing as a "free market". Even If you take away government taxes, gas prices are mainly determined by large corporations like JP Morgan who buy up all existing quantities of oil and let it sit at anchor in more rented tankers than Chevron even owns. Raygun started this and Clinton made it legal. 
How is artificially raising prices "free"?????
Speculation for all commodities now makes up for about 90% of the markets where as 30 years ago, they only made up about half. Combined with inflation against stagnant and lower wages and the "speculation idiots" are much more informed than you are.

This also applies to land values. Right now, foreign investors have now flooded the US spending Billions turning our homes into overpriced rentals. I know this first hand  because I am competing with them at this very moment in Indiana and Ohio trying to find a cheap home for my family since losing my job and my home in Nevada. They are artificially raising prices AGAIN!!!!


Oh yea...$#@! more land taxes....lol

----------


## rpwi

> '
> 
> Both of the persons in your example were surviving just fine without land until they failed to maintain their property.


Well they were relying on land...  The food on the ship was in essence 'packaged' land.  The boat came from land.  So the dependence on land hasn't changed...just the means by which they acquire it.  On ship they merely swapped money or contracted labor for the stored land...and this is done in a larger economy in which competition and bargaining power keeps the price of land from reach monopolistic price levels.   But if we are to eat, we have to either own land or buy from one who does own land.  So if there is a mal-distribution of land...and there will exist a percentage of the population who by no talent or additional exertion of their own, will enjoy a disproportionate share of the fruits of the economy.  If wealth = land + labor...and some have more land than others that it is basic math to determine that some will thus have to contribute more labor to balance the equation.  This the geoist have correct.  The extent to which is a factor and what is an appropriate remedy is where I disagree with the geoist. 




> Thus they get to simply seize the property of others? What happens when they destroy the ability of that to sustain them?


Land should not be apportioned to one ability to consume it.  All of our forests would be clear-cut in no time...  On the tropical island, the issue of property distribution is the core problem...so in that case I can't recognize the property-owner's rights as sacrosanct.  The landowner gets the land from political or personal decree which is highly subjective.  I mean where do you draw the line?  If colonial Britain had awarded the entire western hemisphere to one individual would that have been just?  Surely not...so when then does distribution become an issue?  Where do you draw the line?  Now if the land were to be divided equally among the sailors this would be perfect...but also an incredible to improbable coincidence in a modern economy. 

Myself...I don't know.  What we need in economics is a study of how important the land question is now.  We don't have that.  Macro-economics is all about supply and demand, but that doesn't work with land because more land can't enter the market, so much of macro-economics needs to be rewritten so we can figure out where the mal-distribution of wealth is and if the cure is worth than the disease.  Unfortunately the land debate is dominated by extremist...those on one hand who say it little different than any other factor of distribution...and those who elevate it to exaggerated proportions to the exclusion of non-land factors.

----------


## rpwi

> You knowledge of basic economics is near zero.
> 
> Factors of production:
> 
> 1. LAND and its RESOUCES
> 2. CAPITAL
> 3. LABOR
> 
> *ALL THREE* have to be applied to produce.  Basic stuff.


That is too literal a definition.  A singer can produce in an outdoor concert...yet not really consume any land, nor stored labor, nor stored land.  Legal considerations (like IP) could be considered another factor of production.

What makes the land question paramount is that core goods we consume food/shelter/clothing/water are absolutely dependent on land to at least some degree.  This in turn means we are dependent on land and in turn making the landowners happy enough to part with some of their land for our utilization if we are denied access to an equitable share of land.  Dependency of a factor of production that is zero-sum and mal-distributed is a problem.  It could be oxygen on a spaceship, legal licenses or number of things...or land.

Sure many service industries are not too dependent on land directly (except perhaps commercial occupancy in proximity to other people)...but the land question is important to them too as they must purchase products derived from land for personal consumption, retirement and their customers have less to spend on their services if they have to overpay for land.

----------


## idiom

Whenever land is under serious pressure, land is created through reclamation or people move their operations onto floating cities. In other circumstances people dig down or build up. Either way, land is not fixed.

I live and work on tropical islands, land distribution became an issue mostly when western smarty pants came in and explained to everyone how land ownership was now going to work. Systems that balanced land usage for a thousand years were replaced with ethnic cleansing.

Those that live on small amounts of land are nearly entirely dependent on the sea.

Humanity has been arbitrarily restricted from living entirely at sea by international convention.

----------


## lx43

Comrades, its simple, the reason there are no unemployment in communist countries is due to 100% of all labor being enslaved by our Dear Leader or the Politburo in whatever wild eye cockamamie idea the red demons want implemented.    

Everyone in communist nations are all equal.......equally poor that is, with the exception of our Dear Leaders.

----------


## rpwi

> Whenever land is under serious pressure, land is created through reclamation or people move their operations onto floating cities. In other circumstances people dig down or build up. Either way, land is not fixed.


Land is more than just physical space.  The crux of the land question is not whether you can move to the antarctic, the oceans or the Sahara.  It's that the amount of oil on this planet is zero-sum.  The amount of top-soil is zero-sum.  The amount of copper is zero-sum.  To a great degree, the amount of accessible drinking water is zero-sum.  These and not mere 'spatial occupancy' concerns are the crux of the issue.  

You work on a tropical island?  How does the water system work?

----------


## idiom

> Land is more than just physical space.  The crux of the land question is not whether you can move to the antarctic, the oceans or the Sahara.  It's that the amount of oil on this planet is zero-sum.  The amount of top-soil is zero-sum.  The amount of copper is zero-sum.  To a great degree, the amount of accessible drinking water is zero-sum.  These and not mere 'spatial occupancy' concerns are the crux of the issue.  
> 
> You work on a tropical island?  How does the water system work?


It rains a lot. Some islands have large artesian wells. Or you desalinate.

If copper or other metals became a serious issue, there are many Near-Earth Asteroids containing more than we have ever mined on Earth in each one.

Move away from oil.

Hydroponics.

At least we have an endless supply of pessimism around here.

----------


## rpwi

> It rains a lot. Some islands have large artesian wells. Or you desalinate.
> 
> If copper or other metals became a serious issue, there are many Near-Earth Asteroids containing more than we have ever mined on Earth in each one.
> 
> Move away from oil.
> 
> Hydroponics.
> 
> At least we have an endless supply of pessimism around here.


Easier said than done.  There is a reason why we haven't already started mining asteroids, not stopped using oil and used hydroponics in mass.  They're just not that economically efficient.  Perhaps when I state that land is scarce and zero-sum, I should qualify that these properties occur in a recursive fashion based on diminishing quality.  eg  There might exist X amount of copper on earth that requires 100 hour of labor to extract.  Then there is Y amount of copper that requires 150 hours to extract.  Then there is Z amount of copper that requires 200 hours to extract.  So yeah...if we start to run out of 'X available Copper', we can extract Y copper.  That kind of misses the point though.  The X-amount of copper is zero-sum.  The Y amount is zero-sum, etc...  To mal-distribute X-amount and to justify this by stating that y-amount is available still creates privilege/economic rent.

----------


## idiom

> Easier said than done.  There is a reason why we haven't already started mining asteroids, not stopped using oil and used hydroponics in mass.  They're just not that economically efficient.  Perhaps when I state that land is scarce and zero-sum, I should qualify that these properties occur in a recursive fashion based on diminishing quality.  eg  There might exist X amount of copper on earth that requires 100 hour of labor to extract.  Then there is Y amount of copper that requires 150 hours to extract.  Then there is Z amount of copper that requires 200 hours to extract.  So yeah...if we start to run out of 'X available Copper', we can extract Y copper.  That kind of misses the point though.  The X-amount of copper is zero-sum.  The Y amount is zero-sum, etc...  To mal-distribute X-amount and to justify this by stating that y-amount is available still creates privilege/economic rent.


The number of extremely attractive women is zero-sum.

----------


## The Goat

> Originally Posted by The Goat
> 
> 
> So what happens when someone doesn't have the money to pay their land tax?
> 
> 
> The same as when you do not pay taxes now.


So your going to confiscate their wealth and freedom(take their land and put them in jail). no thank you. I prefer a tax on consumption (sales tax), with food and neccesities exempted.

----------


## The Goat

> Sorry to inform you, but as long as some billionaire is able to buy up all existing quantities of whatever "necessities" are needed in todays society, there can be no such thing as a "free market". Even If you take away government taxes, gas prices are mainly determined by large corporations like JP Morgan who buy up all existing quantities of oil and let it sit at anchor in more rented tankers than Chevron even owns. Raygun started this and Clinton made it legal. 
> How is artificially raising prices "free"?????
> Speculation for all commodities now makes up for about 90% of the markets where as 30 years ago, they only made up about half. Combined with inflation against stagnant and lower wages and the "speculation idiots" are much more informed than you are.
> 
> This also applies to land values. Right now, foreign investors have now flooded the US spending Billions turning our homes into overpriced rentals. I know this first hand  because I am competing with them at this very moment in Indiana and Ohio trying to find a cheap home for my family since losing my job and my home in Nevada. They are artificially raising prices AGAIN!!!!
> 
> 
> Oh yea...$#@! more land taxes....lol



not saying their isn't a problem with speculation. I'm just not going to favor regulation or taxes on something to control behavior. the banks will minipulate it to their advantage anyway.

----------


## idiom

1. Perceive injustice in the world
2. Use injustice to justify unlimited unilateral use of force

Even the anarcho-capitalists fall prey to this one by carefully defining the 'NAP' so don't feel too bad.

Serious Economic Activity requires access to steel. It is unjust that steel plants are owned by large companies and conglomerates. Why don't we give everyone equitable to steel making? We could call it a _Great Leap Forward_...

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> not saying their isn't a problem with speculation. I'm just not going to favor regulation or taxes on something to control behavior. the banks will minipulate it to their advantage anyway.


I agree with you.

I'd say TJ agreed too. 





> I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it.


 Thomas Jefferson

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sorry to inform you, but as long as some billionaire is able to buy up all existing quantities of whatever "necessities" are needed in todays society, there can be no such thing as a "free market". Even If you take away government taxes, gas prices are mainly determined by large corporations like JP Morgan who buy up all existing quantities of oil and let it sit at anchor in more rented tankers than Chevron even owns. Raygun started this and Clinton made it legal. 
> How is artificially raising prices "free"?????
> Speculation for all commodities now makes up for about 90% of the markets where as 30 years ago, they only made up about half. Combined with inflation against stagnant and lower wages and the "speculation idiots" are much more informed than you are.
> 
> This also applies to land values. Right now, foreign investors have now flooded the US spending Billions turning our homes into overpriced rentals. I know this first hand  because I am competing with them at this very moment in Indiana and Ohio trying to find a cheap home for my family since losing my job and my home in Nevada. They are artificially raising prices AGAIN!!!!
> 
> 
> Oh yea...$#@! more land taxes....lol


Without government supports like limited liabilities, bailouts, stimuli, etc; hyperspeculation will inevitably lead to the financial demise of the speculator, making it not in their best interest to speculate, and those who do and fail serving as a warning for those who would.

Notable examples can be had, such as JP Morgan shorting more silver than the physical supply of silver on planet Earth.  JP Morgan had to be bailed out, but the lingering question remains, why aren't their margins called?  

It seems to me in my amateur market ways, that if we actually had a free market, JP Morgan would be allowed to short all the silver they wanted BUT they would not get a bailout, and their shorts would get called, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy of JP Morgan and the total liquidation of their assets restoring the market equilibrium we now lack.

So from where I sit, it appears that the problem is not with the speculation itself, because in a free market speculators would get properly hammered.  The problem is that speculators are somehow being insulated from the consequences of their poor decisions.

----------


## showpan

> Without government supports like limited liabilities, bailouts, stimuli, etc; hyperspeculation will inevitably lead to the financial demise of the speculator, making it not in their best interest to speculate, and those who do and fail serving as a warning for those who would.
> 
> Notable examples can be had, such as JP Morgan shorting more silver than the physical supply of silver on planet Earth.  JP Morgan had to be bailed out, but the lingering question remains, why aren't their margins called?  
> 
> It seems to me in my amateur market ways, that if we actually had a free market, JP Morgan would be allowed to short all the silver they wanted BUT they would not get a bailout, and their shorts would get called, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy of JP Morgan and the total liquidation of their assets restoring the market equilibrium we now lack.
> 
> So from where I sit, it appears that the problem is not with the speculation itself, because in a free market speculators would get properly hammered.  The problem is that speculators are somehow being insulated from the consequences of their poor decisions.


Good point...bailouts are bull$#@!, however that is only one commodity out of 100's. Here it is 40 years later and it won't be long until 100% of all markets are controlled and artificially inflated including land and homes which are now mostly corporate owned. Oil profits have been setting records over the last decade and have more than made up for any losses of other commodities which I suspect were entirely "paper" losses. Even though a company makes a profit, if it doesn't match their "projected" profit...it's counted as a loss.....lol....Even with huge losses, it would have never broke them.
Even if JP Morgan was to fail, there are many others who would fill those shoes. How long is it going to take to bankrupt them all.....I doubt that could ever happen.
My question still remains...how can there possibly be a free market when he who has the most money, ensures it doesn't remain free for the rest?
If we ran out of oil tomorrow, they have amassed so much money, that they would simply buy into whatever flavor is next.

----------


## rpwi

> The number of extremely attractive women is zero-sum.


True...as are a number of other non-economic factors like the # of sunny days in a year.  But you can live your life just fine without an extremely attractive women.  On the other hand, you HAVE to consume food and water, and very likely have to consume clothes/shelter...and are pretty likely to consume oil/electricity/energy, medical supplies and oodles of small little other things we take for granted.  This dependence is quite fantastic.  Furthermore you don't purchase a woman, so the analogy doesn't fit.  Deprivation of one is not the same as deprivation of the other.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So your going to confiscate their wealth


Currently, what happens when you do not pay taxes?  Do they just walk away and shrug their shoulders and do not bother you any more?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If I don't own, lease, rent or occupy any land, but am producing things, is it magic?


I strongly advise you to learn some basic economics.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Whenever land is under serious pressure, land is created through reclamation or people move their operations onto floating cities. In other circumstances people dig down or build up. Either way, land is not fixed.


The sea bed is classed as LAND.




> Humanity has been arbitrarily restricted from living entirely at sea by international convention.


By land ownership and charging of rent - akin to shattle slavery. The native North Americans had no concept of land ownership. It as western thing taken to NA by the British -a country where 0.3% own 70% of the land. A country a permanent housing problem because of it.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I strongly advise you to learn some basic economics.


I strongly advise you to stop pretending that you have.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Good point...bailouts are bull$#@!, however that is only one commodity out of 100's. Here it is 40 years later and it won't be long until 100% of all markets are controlled and artificially inflated including land and homes which are now mostly corporate owned. Oil profits have been setting records over the last decade and have more than made up for any losses of other commodities which I suspect were entirely "paper" losses. Even though a company makes a profit, if it doesn't match their "projected" profit...it's counted as a loss.....lol....Even with huge losses, it would have never broke them.
> Even if JP Morgan was to fail, there are many others who would fill those shoes. How long is it going to take to bankrupt them all.....I doubt that could ever happen.
> My question still remains...how can there possibly be a free market when he who has the most money, ensures it doesn't remain free for the rest?
> If we ran out of oil tomorrow, they have amassed so much money, that they would simply buy into whatever flavor is next.


That's simply not true though.  In a free market (which of course has not existed in the US for at least a century) you can't monopolize a market with money alone.  You may be able to corner it for a short period of time, but outside of captured regulators, market manipulation requires insider trading which is and should always be illegal (or at least illicit -- public vs private rules, a debate for another day).

Take oil since you mention it, citing losses on failing to reach expected profits is only helpful within a tax paradigm that allows losses to be deducted or amortized.  The whole notion of 'capitalize the profits and socialize the losses' is anathema to the free market and should not exist.  _If_ we had a free market then they wouldn't.  Therefore there would be no advantage to a company inventing losses, and that problem goes away.  

JP Morgan, if they had not received bailout funds and if their silver shorts had been called, would surely have failed, and quickly, despite how big they are.  If another company steps up to fill their shoes and pursues their same business practices, then they would fail too.  The point of businesses is not to fail, so it wouldn't take long for boards of directors to step up and say "hey, acting that way destroys companies in this new sort of (free) market, so don't do that."  And you better believe that companies listen to their boards of directors.

About the most authority I see existing in the Constitution for commodities markets and exchange trading would be the development of an "overheating warning" where when a market or a commodity gets heavily overspeculated the (original meaning of) regulators step up and say "the oil markets are over-speculated and this could lead to catastrophic cascading failures unless companies start unhitching from the speculation wave."  Would prefer that be done privately, but it actually falls within the confines of the Constitution to make interstate trade 'regular,' by warning of an impending failure.  Most would, some won't, the ones that don't most likely end up bankrupt.  A couple cycles of this and people start listening. Mind you, we are not at all talking about what 'regulation' has come to mean _today_, but rather it's original meaning, more like an engine overheating warning light on your dashboard.  It remains up to you if you want to keep on driving or not.

What else, wheat?  Sugar?  Remove the price controls, stop paying farmers not to grow, stop manipulating the markets, remove any safety nets for speculation, and speculators die a grizzly market death and serve as a watchword for others.  Problem solved.

_IF_ we had a free market (and yes, it really is a big _if_) then speculation would be rightly seen as a slow drawn out corporate suicide, and after a cascading failure or two it would never again happen in enough quantity to manipulate the markets, and corporate boards of directors would start stepping up to act as a check against such reckless behavior as they should.

The solution to overspeculation is not to regulate or legislate against speculation, or to criminalize it, but to restore a real free market and tell the idiots if they want to point a loaded gun at their own heads that nobody is going to be there to bail them out.  People being what they are they won't believe it and a couple will test it, and after a couple megagiants go down in flames they will start paying attention.

----------


## The Goat

> Currently, what happens when you do not pay taxes?  Do they just walk away and shrug their shoulders and do not bother you any more?


So your going to use the present system as a moral basis or something? theirs your first problem. 

I didn't say when they don't pay their taxes, I said when they don't have money to pay their taxes. with a consumption tax your not taxed unless your spending money. I don't like land tax where your wealth can be confiscated. In reality you never own anything you just lease it from the government.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I don't like land tax where your wealth can be confiscated. In reality you never own anything you just lease it from the government.


B-but...those forever lease payments go toward compensating everyone standing on the outside the land, whom they say are being deprived of their equal right of liberty to use your land (which land is theirs too, so they claim, and no fair-sies if it isn't).  Isn't that fair and wonderful?  Every individual, including you, has an equal claim to access to all land within their community. That's physically impossible, of course, which is why it all has to be settled by auction, doncha know.  That's where you get to compete for access to best lands. Whomever is willing to make the highest rental payments to the state gets that land, and whatever the state doles out to everyone for their "deprivation" is considered "just compensation".  Why, it's one big happy utopian jerk circle!

----------


## idiom

Lol, so now any resource that you can prove you are dependent on is land? This is getting more and more ridiculous.

----------


## Danan

> Sorry to inform you, but as long as some billionaire is able to buy up all existing quantities of whatever "necessities" are needed in todays society, there can be no such thing as a "free market". Even If you take away government taxes, gas prices are mainly determined by large corporations like JP Morgan who buy up all existing quantities of oil and let it sit at anchor in more rented tankers than Chevron even owns. Raygun started this and Clinton made it legal. 
> How is artificially raising prices "free"?????
> Speculation for all commodities now makes up for about 90% of the markets where as 30 years ago, they only made up about half. Combined with inflation against stagnant and lower wages and the "speculation idiots" are much more informed than you are.



The argument that a business model of buying up a certain commodity (at global equilibrium price) and selling it for a higher price is either a viable longterm strategy for sellers or a huge threat to consumers is just not true.

Prices of goods traded at international exchanges quickly tend to move towards a global equilibrium. At this point sellers already operate profit maximizing. Buying up all commodities would be a silly action. Yes you could raise prices but at the same time you would lose customers.


Now one *could* argue that if a "billionaire" succeeded and bought up a whole commodity he had some kind of monopoly power. And while that's not entirely wrong there are several counter-arguments to that.

First of all it's highly unlikely that he would succeed. He can't just buy all the oil available at one fell swoop. Competitors would eventually realize his behaviour and react.

And even if they wouldn't there are other points to consider. During the process of buying up the oil the excess demand would cause prices to increase, the more the less oil is still left since the current market price merely reflects the price of the marginal unit. These excess costs are especially damaging if he can't figure out a viable method of price discrimination whe he tries to sell it again.

Also the expected additional profits aren't that huge even if everything worked out fine for our billionaire. Even a monopoly has to consider the aggregate demand curve. Depending on demand and supply elasticity the monopoly status could be a rather small net advantage, even "ceteris paribus" (which I'd say is a positive assumption for him).

In the end the whole strategy is only viable in the short term, highly risky and wouldn't yield that much profit even if successfully realized.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I currently do  a bunch of part time jobs to just barely make it by and feed myself. I don't have any motive to get a decent paying full time job, when 40% of my pay gets stolen by the government. 15% social security tax and 25% between state and federal income tax. No $#@!ing thanks. It's true, if you don't work for yourself you only pay 7 1/2% social security tax, but it affects your pay when your employer is paying the other 7 1/2%.

----------


## idiom

> I currently do  a bunch of part time jobs to just barely make it by and feed myself. I don't have any motive to get a decent paying full time job, when 40% of my pay gets stolen by the government. 15% social security tax and 25% between state and federal income tax. No $#@!ing thanks. It's true, if you don't work for yourself you only pay 7 1/2% social security tax, but it affects your pay when your employer is paying the other 7 1/2%.


You are so lucky you don't have to pay a land tax on top of all of that.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You are so lucky you don't have to pay a land tax on top of all of that.


Pay attention at then back!  Using Land Tax as a the SINGLE TAX, eliminates Income a & Sales Tax. Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, use it to reduce Income and Corporation Taxes which promotes enterprise which makes them amongst the most dynamic and free economies in the world.

Now you know, real life examples of how to make stable, dynamic economies.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I strongly advise you to stop pretending that you have.


This is from a very confused man who thinks a tax shift is some sort Communism.  Amazing!  How many reds did you find under the bed today?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> _IF_ we had a free market (and yes, it really is a big _if_) then speculation would be rightly seen as a slow drawn out corporate suicide, and after a cascading failure or two it would never again happen in enough quantity to manipulate the markets, and corporate boards of directors would start stepping up to act as a check against such reckless behavior as they should.


Corporations were created to corner and manipulate the free-market.  They are the antithesis of the free-market.  Corporations were one of the cornerstones of fascism.




> The solution to overspeculation is not to regulate or legislate against speculation, or to criminalize it, but to restore a real free market


Very true. You need a system that is largely self-controlling. One that requires minimal government interference.  The job of government should be to ensure the free-market runs, is not rigged or monopolized. 

The most harmful of speculation is that of LAND and its RESOURCES. We have constant boom & busts and the occasional world-wide crash.  Common sense say eliminate speculation on LAND. That is not difficult to conclude. However merely a tax shift can do that, by taxing the values of land.  Essential land is then used for productive use and not hoarded for speculation purposes.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So your going to use the present system as a moral basis or something? theirs your first problem.


Can you tell me another way when people do not pay their debts?



> I didn't say when they don't pay their taxes, I said when they don't have money to pay their taxes.


What happens now when someone cannot pay their property taxes?  Property Taxes?  There is an exemption in many places.  LVT can have the same. It can also be deferred until death or sale of property. There are many fair solution for these problems. It has all been thought out and put into use.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> B-but...those forever lease payments go toward compensating everyone standing on the outside the land, whom they say are being deprived of their equal right of liberty to use your land


Land Value Tax is reclaiming commonly created wealth Private wealth is left alone.

You have continually been told this. Unfortunately decades of political conditioning gets the better of you.  This is sad.  Open your mind, you have everything to gain.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I don't like land tax where your wealth can be confiscated. In reality you never own anything you just lease it from the government.


FIND OUT!!! Instead of repeating misinformation!   Land Valuation Tax is a tax shift NOTHING ELSE.

Land ownership, sales of land title, business behavior, etc, all stay the same.

Land Valuation Tax taxes the "value" of the land on an annual basis. *VALUE!!!!*  The value goes down? so does the annual levy.  Get it?  Not difficult is it.  But!!  What you earn is not taxed. NO Income Tax or Sales taxes, etc.  What YOU earn YOU keep  *Private wealth stays private*. The government does not steal it.  Commonly created wealth, as in land values, is reclaimed for common use.  The board is shaken and the balls all go back into their proper holes. 

*1. Socially created wealth stays socialized.  
2. Privately created wealth stays private.*

This creates an amazing amount of freedom.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Pay attention at then back!  Using Land Tax as a the SINGLE TAX, eliminates Income a & Sales Tax.


Pay attention at then back! George (georgists, geolibs, etc.,) _propose_ using land value tax as a single tax.  The tax itself does *not* eliminate income, sales, or any other tax, any more than property tax, land value tax or any other tax does now. Not only does land value tax _not_ eliminate other taxes, concomitant, it can run concurrently and in addition to all of them. 

Not once in recorded history has LVT been implemented as the "single tax" envisioned and proposed by Henry George, wherein he proposed to "abolish all taxation save that upon land values."  There is nothing special about or inherent in a land value tax, or any other basis for a tax, that would cause it to eliminate any other tax.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Pay attention at then back! George (georgists, geolibs, etc.,) _propose_ using land value tax as a single tax.  The tax itself does *not* eliminate income, sales, or any other tax,


I underlined single tax for you.  Single means one.  The one tax is Land Value Tax.  Get it?  Not difficult is it? This displays your political conditioning.




> Not once in recorded history has LVT been implemented as the "single tax"


In a German Chinese colony of Kaio Chan to massive success.  WW1 took the colony away from Germany.  The success so marked Germany considered LVT pre WW1. Taiwan was influenced as uses LVT to keep Income and Corporation taxes to a minimum and to keep land productive.  LVT catapulted Taiwan from a poverty ridden collection of paddy fields, with less than 20 people owning most of the island, to a  world technological super power.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism....n-yat-sen.html

Geonomics Proven To Work

Denmark prospered under the Geoist system using the Single Tax for 3 years until right-wing vested interest of landowners scupperred it. Geonomics were imposed for three years but the diminishing after-effects were seen for approximately another four years.

The Danes, by old tradition, have been accustomed to the concept that the land belongs to the people. 

Pay attention at the back!!!!

----------


## pcosmar

In communist countries,,, ??

There has never been one. EVER. There are various flavors of Socialism. and some call themselves "communist",, but communism only exists in fantasy land.
It is contrary to human nature, and as such can not and never will exist.

It does make a nice Red Herring though.

As to LVT, 




How about *NO TAX*.?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> In communist countries,,, ??
> 
> There has never been one. EVER. There are various flavors of Socialism. and some call themselves "communist",, but communism only exists in fantasy land.


Communism HAS existed. This is veiled attempt to discredit the highly success social-democratic systems in Europe.  Ignorant extreme right-wing Americans put Communism and democratic socialism into the same pot. 

Communism is against human nature that is why it fails. It is emphasis is on equality not fairness. 

Land Valuation Tax as the Single Tax runs totally with human nature and appeals to the human side in us. You keep 100% what you earn.  The state does sreal from when you buy a product in Sales Tax. Community services are paid for from community created wealth, not privately created wealth as we have now.  Marx said George's book, Progress and Poverty was "Capitalism last ditch".  Geoism is more Capitalist than what we have now!!!!!!

It is best you understand what LVT is is and what it achieves instead of making a fool of yourself. It is not difficult. It brings you freedom.  Ever wondered why they attempted to erase Henry George from history - he wrote one of the world's best selling books and few have heard of him. Amazing.

Set yourself free align with Geonomics.  BTW, Geonomics and the Austrians have a lot of gray area.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I underlined single tax for you.  Single means one.  The one tax is Land Value Tax.  Get it?  Not difficult is it? This displays your political conditioning.


Pay attention on the fringe! What you underlined is irrelevant.  What YOU mean, what YOU propose, is that a particular basis for a particular tax be used as a "single tax".  That's your proposal, which is EXTRINSIC to the tax.  There is nothing INHERENT in any tax that makes it exclusive of any other.  Relabeling it doesn't mean a $#@!ing thing!  A "Pound Sterling" used to be just that. Likewise a "US DOLLAR" is defined (labeled) as a specific amount of silver.  But in reality and practice these labels are meaningless, as fiat paper now masquerades as "Pound" and "Dollar". 

So you can even relabel Land Value Tax as "SINGLE TAX", and let it be called that.  For that matter, underline it, put it in upper case, italicize it and make it bold.  Or, like Tommy Boy says, _"Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time."_ 

Outside your worthless proposal, there is nothing to prevent that "*SINGLE TAX*" from being implemented alongside other taxes. There are some who _propose_ other bases for a single tax (flat tax, sales tax, tariff, etc.,).  But like yours, those are just proposals.  There is nothing about the taxes themselves - ANY TAX - that makes them "single", as in "exclusive of others".




> In a German Chinese colony to massive success.


Massive success for those who benefited from it? Not such a "success" for those dispossessed. You're referring to the German colony of Kiaochow, China, of course.  I have been to Qingdao/Jiaozhou many times. There be skeletons in that closet. 




> *Shaken, Not Stirred: Segregated Colonial Space and Radical Alterity during the First Phase of German Colonialism in Kiaochow, 1897–1904*
> 
> SOURCE
> 
> In the words of a German newspaper published in China at the time of the annexation, the Chinese were “driven out” of old Qingdao. One of the first interventions by Admiral Diederichs was to forbid all land sales in the leasehold without his approval. Proclamations to this effect in Chinese were posted in the villages. Diederichs pressured county officials into giving him copies of the tax books, which he used, along with consulting local experts, to determine who owned each plot of land in the leased territory. 
> 
> *Anyone who owned land the Germans thought they would need for their construction plans was forced to sell at prices determined by the Chinese cadastral surveys.* 
> 
> The navy administration purchased enough land for the city and harbor, approximately two thousand hectares, or 3.6 percent of the entire area of Kiaochow. After drawing up an initial plan for Qingdao, the government held an auction in October 1898 to sell plots of land in the city that were not going to be used for official construction. According to one German businessman who participated in the public sale of land, it was “full of excitement” and “prices were driven up to three dollars the square meter.”
> ...


Fred Foldvary and other Geolib/LVT proponents and sites like to tout Kiachow as the _single example_ of LVT implementation as a wildly successful "single tax".  I don't know how that worked, or even if it truly was a "single tax" (I'm certainly not going to take any geolib's word for it).  von Dr. W. Schrameier, the German administration officer who promoted and administered the tax (on behalf of the German navy), wrote a lengthy memorandum about the problems with it.  What were those problems? What was in his memo? Predictably, none of the geolib sites that do make mention of it provide a translation (which I am trying have translated from German now) or go into any details.  For that reason, for the time being, consider all claims about Kiaochow being a shining exemplar of the LVT "single tax" solution as NOT stipulated to.

I believe that the memo Dr. W. Schrameier wrote is entitled:

Aus Kiautschous verwaltung; die land-, steuer- und zollpolitik des Kiautschougebietes, von Dr. W. Schrameier
(From Kiaochow management; the country, tax and customs policy of the Kiautschougebietes, by Dr. W. Schrameier)

----------


## Demigod

> Pay attention at then back!  Using Land Tax as a the SINGLE TAX, eliminates Income a & Sales Tax. Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, use it to reduce Income and Corporation Taxes which promotes enterprise which makes them amongst the most dynamic and free economies in the world.
> 
> Now you know, real life examples of how to make stable, dynamic economies.


Yes but if I lose my job I still will have my house and with it a roof over my head as long as I need it.If I make no income the government can not tax me.On the other hand if I live in Hong Kong or Singapore  if I lose my job in some time I lose my house as well and I would go from middle to dirt poor class in a very short time.

In any case the only tax that I approve is VAT because by me it is the fairest way in which the government can collect revenue.

----------


## Demigod

> *Communism HAS existed. This is veiled attempt to discredit the highly success social-democratic systems in Europe.  Ignorant extreme right-wing Americans put Communism and democratic socialism into the same pot.* 
> 
> Communism is against human nature that is why it fails. It is emphasis is on equality not fairness. 
> 
> Land Valuation Tax as the Single Tax runs totally with human nature and appeals to the human side in us. You keep 100% what you earn.  The state does sreal from when you buy a product in Sales Tax. Community services are paid for from community created wealth, not privately created wealth as we have now.  Marx said George's book, Progress and Poverty was "Capitalism last ditch".  Geoism is more Capitalist than what we have now!!!!!!
> 
> It is best you understand what LVT is is and what it achieves instead of making a fool of yourself. It is not difficult. It brings you freedom.  Ever wondered why they attempted to erase Henry George from history - he wrote one of the world's best selling books and few have heard of him. Amazing.
> 
> Set yourself free align with Geonomics.  BTW, Geonomics and the Austrians have a lot of gray area.


And  I will ask again *IN WHICH SOCIALISTIC/COMMUNISTIC  COUNTRY DID YOU LIVE IN ?* or still do

----------


## Origanalist

> And  I will ask again *IN WHICH SOCIALISTIC COUNTRY DID YOU LIVE IN ?*



Doesn't matter demigod, just understand what geonomics is. Set yourself free man, loose those chains that are binding you.

And for petes sake, quit making a fool of yourself ( oh the irony).

----------


## redbluepill

> Step 1 is incorrect. Land is not essential for all production.
> 
> It is essential for some types of mining. That's about it. Otherwise it would be logically impossible to produce anything at sea, in space or in the air.
> 
> You need a new step 1.


I don't think you understand what he means by land.

----------


## redbluepill

> '
> 
> Both of the persons in your example were surviving just fine without land until they failed to maintain their property.
> 
> Thus they get to simply seize the property of others? What happens when they destroy the ability of that to sustain them?



Dude. The whole point is that you need land to survive (and I don't mean you need to own it). In order to have a "right to be" you have to have a "right to be somewhere"

----------


## redbluepill

> So your going to confiscate their wealth and freedom(take their land and put them in jail). no thank you. I prefer a tax on consumption (sales tax), with food and neccesities exempted.


You prefer a tax on productive activity over a tax on unproductive activity? No thank you.

----------


## redbluepill

> Thomas Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of ground rent. 


Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, dated October 28, 1785: _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._

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/...an_Ideals.html

----------


## redbluepill

> Lol, so now any resource that you can prove you are dependent on is land? This is getting more and more ridiculous.


Its basic economics! 

_1. General: Primary input and factor of production which is not consumed but without which no production is possible. It is the resource that has no cost of production and, although its usage can be switched from a less to more profitable one, its supply cannot be increased. The term 'land' includes all physical elements in the wealth of a nation bestowed by nature; such as climate, environment, fields, forests, minerals, mountains, lakes, streams, seas, and animals. As an asset, it includes anything (1) on the ground (such as buildings, crops, fences, trees, water), (2) above the ground (air and space rights), and (3) under the ground (mineral rights), down to the center of the Earth. Perhaps the oldest form of collateral, land is still very attractive to lenders because it cannot be destroyed, moved, stolen, or wasted. All a lender needs is the borrower's clear title to it._

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz202xivoDB




_Land: Everything physical (other than human beings) which is not the result of human effort is within the economic definition of land. This concept thus includes not merely the dry surface of the earth, but all natural materials, forces and opportunities. The trees in a virgin forest are land; in a cultivated forest they are wealth._
http://www.henrygeorge.org/def2.htm

----------


## The Goat

...

----------


## idiom

> Pay attention at then back!  Using Land Tax as a the SINGLE TAX, eliminates Income a & Sales Tax. Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, use it to reduce Income and Corporation Taxes which promotes enterprise which makes them amongst the most dynamic and free economies in the world.
> 
> Now you know, real life examples of how to make stable, dynamic economies.


Oh, I had forgotten what industrial production superpowers they were. Nearly their entire GDPs are based on economic activity _outside_ of their tax jurisdictions.

Any other example of countries with land taxes depending on external production you want to share?

----------


## idiom

> Its basic economics! 
> 
> _1. General: Primary input and factor of production which is not consumed but without which no production is possible. It is the resource that has no cost of production and, although its usage can be switched from a less to more profitable one, its supply cannot be increased. The term 'land' includes all physical elements in the wealth of a nation bestowed by nature; such as climate, environment, fields, forests, minerals, mountains, lakes, streams, seas, and animals. As an asset, it includes anything (1) on the ground (such as buildings, crops, fences, trees, water), (2) above the ground (air and space rights), and (3) under the ground (mineral rights), down to the center of the Earth. Perhaps the oldest form of collateral, land is still very attractive to lenders because it cannot be destroyed, moved, stolen, or wasted. All a lender needs is the borrower's clear title to it._


So... a single tax that covers consumption of oxygen, rainfall, land usage, sea usage, sunlight capture... Yes more and more sensible to implement and enforce.

----------


## redbluepill

> So... a single tax that covers consumption of oxygen, rainfall, land usage, sea usage, sunlight capture... Yes more and more sensible to implement and enforce.


Umm, no, that is not how the LVT works.

The LVT taxes those who hold land in exclusion from everyone else. Not for simply using the land.

----------


## Kluge

> Umm, no, that is not how the LVT works.
> 
> The LVT taxes those who hold land in exclusion from everyone else. Not for simply using the land.


I see...so there is zero right to privacy unless you're taxed by gunpoint, and unless I pay up to your version of gov't, it's legal for you to steal from me? 

This is better how?

(At least you're not promoting theft from old people--you got that going for you.

----------


## redbluepill

> I see...so there is zero right to privacy unless you're taxed by gunpoint, and unless I pay up to your version of gov't, it's legal for you to steal from me? 
> 
> This is better how?
> 
> (At least you're not promoting theft from old people--you got that going for you.


The tax gets paid. Whether its to a landlord who pockets it or to a government who returns it to the people is up to you, the voters, and those with the power.

----------


## Kluge

> The tax gets paid. Whether its to a landlord who pockets it or to a government who returns it to the people is up to you, the voters, and those with the power.


Uh huh. Where is this government who returns tax money to the people in a reasonable way?

The answer is to not give the gov't revenue in the first place, since the gov't is occupied by sociopaths who will suck the population dry and do it in a centralized way, protected by a massive army...or I can give it to a landlord where I can leave when the lease is over, if not sooner, if things go South.

----------


## idiom

> Umm, no, that is not how the LVT works.
> 
> The LVT taxes those who hold land in exclusion from everyone else. Not for simply using the land.


So... Conservationists have to pay the entire cost of government?

----------


## redbluepill

> So... Conservationists have to pay the entire cost of government?


Conservationists bought all the land? Thats news to me.

----------


## redbluepill

> Uh huh. Where is this government who returns tax money to the people in a reasonable way?


Its called the Citizen's Dividend. Alaska does it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend





> The answer is to not give the gov't revenue in the first place, since the gov't is occupied by sociopaths who will suck the population dry and do it in a centralized way, protected by a massive army...or I can give it to a landlord where I can leave when the lease is over, if not sooner, if things go South.


I support decentralized communities with small governments who represent each of those communities over landlord governments who represent only their wallets.

----------


## idiom

> Conservationists bought all the land? Thats news to me.


They did here. It matches your definition. It would make conservation nearly impossible. Conserved or preserved land produces very little economic return yet would suffer intensely under any tax regime that placed that sort of weight on unused land.

----------


## Kluge

> Its called the Citizen's Dividend. Alaska does it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up. A landlord is government. And I don't support centralized states.


I've never received a dividend from the gov't, and I don't want to--I want to earn it myself and not give it to them to redistribute. You have a problem with that?

A landlord is government? Funny--I actually signed a contract to rent an apartment, never signed one with the gov't. I can also get out of the contract with a landlord pretty easily, or let it expire.

Your comparison sucks ass. Try again.

----------


## redbluepill

> They did here. It matches your definition. It would make conservation nearly impossible. Conserved or preserved land produces very little economic return yet would suffer intensely under any tax regime that placed that sort of weight on unused land.


Conservation would be encouraged in a Georgist society because it discourages sprawl. More land would be left to the natural world.

"Georgist policies let us conserve ecology and environment while also making jobs, by abating sprawl. It is a matter of focusing human activity on the good lands, thus meeting demands there and relieving pressure to invade lands now wild that are marginal for human needs. Urban sprawl is the kind of sprawl most publicized, but there is analogous sprawl in agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation, and other land uses and industries."

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Environment.html

----------


## redbluepill

> I've never received a dividend from the gov't, and I don't want to--I want to earn it myself and not give it to them to redistribute. You have a problem with that?


It has been proposed by Frank Chodorov, Thomas Paine, and other libertarians.






> A landlord is government? Funny--I actually signed a contract to rent an apartment, never signed one with the gov't. I can also get out of the contract with a landlord pretty easily, or let it expire.
> 
> Your comparison sucks ass. Try again.


Give this a read.
http://libertythinkers.com/education...r-land-rights/


I'm a bit distracted clearly. Bb later.

----------


## rpwi

> Conservation would be encouraged in a Georgist society because it discourages sprawl. More land would be left to the natural world.
> 
> "Georgist policies let us conserve ecology and environment while also making jobs, by abating sprawl. It is a matter of focusing human activity on the good lands, thus meeting demands there and relieving pressure to invade lands now wild that are marginal for human needs. Urban sprawl is the kind of sprawl most publicized, but there is analogous sprawl in agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation, and other land uses and industries."
> 
> http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Environment.html


I don't know if it would work like that.  Say a farmer has 100 acres of farmland and 30 acres of forest.  The LVT comes along...and he is taxed quite heavily.  The farmland probably won't be too much of a problem because he can raise prices (non-landowners will have more money to buy what landowners sell).  What would hurt him the most would be the forests.  If zoning were to allow it, he could perhaps sell the forests...to separate interests and let them worry about the LVT. But with LVT...land to a certain degree would be a hot potato.  Demand would go down for unproductive land because of LVT which would drive down the price.  So say the farmer doesn't sell his forests...will he just stomach the higher taxes?  Probably not...he'll probably log the forest to pay for the taxes.  Yes, urban development would be more efficient...but rural land which constitutes most land in the US would come under far greater development pressure and this would be a problem.

Perhaps a compromise might be to make natural resource conservation LVT exempt or tax deductible.  The Nature Conservancy enjoys some tax benefits now from property taxes...but unfortunately everybody gets upset with them because it reduces the pool of people who do have to pay property taxes.  Conservation though is a positive externality though and I personally would favor it getting tax deferential treatment.  On the reserve side, if a property owner is creating negative externalities (like dumping toxins that get into the ground water), I like the idea of on the local them paying some sort of negative externality tax.

----------


## idiom

If it became a serious regime in any country that actually produced anything, the productive people would move elsewhere, or out to sea.

If you tax a businesses profits then it will try to show zero profits on its books. If you try to tax its resource use then it will try to show zero resource use on its books.

----------


## idiom

You know who else would get totally rooted in the states by the American Government trying to raise $6 Trillion per year purely from land taxes?

The Native Americans.
Any subsistence families who live off their land rural land and don't generate much income.
Any non-intensive farming system.
As noted, any private conservation efforts.

Any body who owns their home.

The people who would make out like bandits are the ones with enough money to play the rules of the system and account themselves out of taxes, or those close to the levers of power who decided how the tax rates actually are or what the magically exceptions will be.

It creates serfs out of everyone trying to get by or do good, and landlords out of cut-throats and thieves.

Its monstrous really.

----------


## redbluepill

> I don't know if it would work like that.  Say a farmer has 100 acres of farmland and 30 acres of forest.  The LVT comes along...and he is taxed quite heavily.  The farmland probably won't be too much of a problem because he can raise prices (non-landowners will have more money to buy what landowners sell).  What would hurt him the most would be the forests.  If zoning were to allow it, he could perhaps sell the forests...to separate interests and let them worry about the LVT. But with LVT...land to a certain degree would be a hot potato.  Demand would go down for unproductive land because of LVT which would drive down the price.  So say the farmer doesn't sell his forests...will he just stomach the higher taxes?  Probably not...he'll probably log the forest to pay for the taxes.  Yes, urban development would be more efficient...but rural land which constitutes most land in the US would come under far greater development pressure and this would be a problem.
> 
> Perhaps a compromise might be to make natural resource conservation LVT exempt or tax deductible.  The Nature Conservancy enjoys some tax benefits now from property taxes...but unfortunately everybody gets upset with them because it reduces the pool of people who do have to pay property taxes.  Conservation though is a positive externality though and I personally would favor it getting tax deferential treatment.  On the reserve side, if a property owner is creating negative externalities (like dumping toxins that get into the ground water), I like the idea of on the local them paying some sort of negative externality tax.



I've heard proposals for tax exemptions/reductions for conservations and its something I've thought about as well.
I certainly don't argue LVT is the panacea for all our society's problems. Urban sprawl is definitely one problem that would be put in check and I would argue is the biggest problem for our environment today.

Farmers are often brought up in LVT conversations. Since they possess large tracts of land people often think they would be hit hardest by it. Keep in mind, in comparison to urban land and land in the center of small towns farmland is pretty cheap.

----------


## redbluepill

> You know who else would get totally rooted in the states by the American Government trying to raise $6 Trillion per year purely from land taxes?


No Georgist promotes the bloated monstrosity of a government we have today. Where you got the idea we want to raise 6 trillion is beyond me.




> The Native Americans.


Native Americans territories are sovereign. I would not advocate changing that.





> Any subsistence families who live off their land rural land and don't generate much income.


Their tax burden would be very small compared to what it is today. Every other tax would be eliminated and land prices would be driven down thanks to an end to speculation.




> Any non-intensive farming system.


There are many reasons why LVT would be good for farmers. The biggest benefit being that it would reduce urban sprawl. 
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Farmers.html




> As noted, any private conservation efforts.


Addressed above.




> Any body who owns their home.


_LVT reduces foreclosure
Keeping house prices stable and affordable reduces foreclosures. Also, any real estate tax must be born by the bank or mortgage company that forecloses. This makes mortgagors  more willing to negotate in order to avoid taking possession of the tax obligations. Beyond that, tax impact studies in Pittsburgh, Clairton, Duquesne and McKeesport have shown that LVT saves mortgaged home owners even more than other home owners._
http://www.savingcommunities.org/iss...xes/landvalue/

----------


## idiom

> No Georgist promotes the bloated monstrosity of a government we have today. Where you got the idea we want to raise 6 trillion is beyond me.


There are plenty of ways to fund a theoretical small government. That is not actually a problem anywhere for anyone.

So what exactly are you trying to solve?

----------


## idiom

So to sum up...

'LVT' proponents claim that the government has ownership of every identifiable resource in the solar system.

No matter how far you run, or what you build there with your own hands, the government has the right to bill you for the privilege at a rate of their choosing.

If you cannot meet the arbitrarily set government rate for the space you are taking up the government has the right to evict you.

This is the path to true individual liberty.

...yeah okay.

----------


## idiom

Oh and to get back to the O.P. there is severe unemployment in China and the Indian States that have Communist governments.

Somalia, the last true communist state, has pretty high unemployment too.

It is also generally regarded that employment that fails to feed you is pretty much not employment.

Lack of speculation didn't create a stable economy with no booms or busts, it created permanent busts.

----------


## redbluepill

> There are plenty of ways to fund a theoretical small government. That is not actually a problem anywhere for anyone.






> So what exactly are you trying to solve?


I want a TRULY free market.


_George considered himself a purifier of Capitalism, not its enemy. He built upon the foundations laid by the classical economists. The skeleton of his system is essentially Capitalist. In fact, Karl Marx referred to George’s teaching as “Capitalism’s last ditch.” George believed in competition, in the free market, in the unrestricted operation of the laws of supply and demand. He distrusted government and despised bureaucracy. He was no egalitarian leveler; the only equality he sought was equal freedom of opportunity. Actually, what he intended was to make free enterprise truly free, by ridding it of the monopolistic hobbles which prevent its effective operation._
http://schalkenbach.org/rsf-1/

The Lockean Proviso is violated. Poverty and homelessness is prevalent. This was the case when we had small and big government. Landlords are government. They need to be put in check like any state.

----------


## redbluepill

> So to sum up...
> 
> 'LVT' proponents claim that the government has ownership of every identifiable resource in the solar system.


Under a Georgist system government would have no authority over how, when, or by whom land is used. Everything is still privately controlled. Government would only have the authority to ensure the rent is collected and returned to the community.





> No matter how far you run, or what you build there with your own hands, the government has the right to bill you for the privilege at a rate of their choosing.


I suggest you do the research first.

The government does not choose the rate a landholder pays. That is determined by the market. When the land value goes up, the amount that is paid goes up. When the land value goes down, the amount paid goes down.




> If you cannot meet the arbitrarily set government rate for the space you are taking up the government has the right to evict you.



_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.
_

_LVT keeps housing affordable
LVT has such a powerful dampening effect on idle land speculation that even the land portion of the real estate tax keeps housing affordable. Cities with the highest real estate taxes have the most affordable housing. Texas and California were the two fastest growing states in the second half of the 20th century. Texas, which relies heavily on property tax, having no personal income taxes, has four of the six most affordable cities in the nation. California, which dramatically curtailed its property taxes, has 23 of the 25 least affordable cities.
It is only logical that a tax on buildings would discourage construction and reduce the supply of buildings, increasing real estate prices and rents. However, LVT is such a potent disincentive to idle landholding that it has a much stronger opposite effect. We found a strong correlation between high real estate taxes and housing affordability._

_LVT reduces foreclosure
Keeping house prices stable and affordable reduces foreclosures. Also, any real estate tax must be born by the bank or mortgage company that forecloses. This makes mortgagors  more willing to negotate in order to avoid taking possession of the tax obligations. Beyond that, tax impact studies in Pittsburgh, Clairton, Duquesne and McKeesport have shown that LVT saves mortgaged home owners even more than other home owners.

LVT costs renters nothing
Economists agree that LVT is not passed on to renters, because rents are determined by what the market will bear, not by landlords' costs. LVT benefits landlords by encouraging higher density and attracting more tenants, not by gouging existing tenants. Other taxes drive productive tenants away and depress rents by more than what the landlord would have paid under a land value tax. All taxes eventually come out of rent, and LVT is the only one that does not discourage economic growth.
_

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




> This is the path to true individual liberty.
> 
> ...yeah okay.


_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"..._
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Nock.html

----------


## idiom

> Under a Georgist system government would have no authority over how, when, or by whom land is used. Everything is still privately controlled. Government would only have the authority to ensure the rent is collected and returned to the community.


And when the rent is not collected...?




> That is determined by the market. When the land value goes up, the amount that is paid goes up. When the land value goes down, the amount paid goes down.


And if the market chooses to game the 'land' values? The market will do its utmost to drive any system of valuation that is becomes the single largest source of economic pain to zero. The market will hire the smartest people on the planet to figure out ways to do it.

A simple example would be a cartel passing parcels of land around for $1. Their rent would be particularly low... unless you let something other than the market value of the land dictate rent...

This one reeks particuarly:




> LVT costs renters nothing
> Economists agree that LVT is not passed on to renters, because rents are determined by what the market will bear, not by landlords' costs. LVT benefits landlords by encouraging higher density and attracting more tenants, not by gouging existing tenants. Other taxes drive productive tenants away and depress rents by more than what the landlord would have paid under a land value tax. All taxes eventually come out of rent, and LVT is the only one that does not discourage economic growth.


The state which you state spends its time trying to keep landlords in check, spends its time trying to stop landlords from increasing density and tenant count. So the cost would be directly passed to renters.

All rent is paid by customers, never by the business. This is also 'basic' economics.


And this:




> LVT keeps housing affordable
> LVT has such a powerful dampening effect on idle land speculation that even the land portion of the real estate tax keeps housing affordable. Cities with the highest real estate taxes have the most affordable housing. Texas and California were the two fastest growing states in the second half of the 20th century. Texas, which relies heavily on property tax, having no personal income taxes, has four of the six most affordable cities in the nation. California, which dramatically curtailed its property taxes, has 23 of the 25 least affordable cities.
> It is only logical that a tax on buildings would discourage construction and reduce the supply of buildings, increasing real estate prices and rents. However, LVT is such a potent disincentive to idle landholding that it has a much stronger opposite effect. We found a strong correlation between high real estate taxes and housing affordability.


Correlation something something causation.

Strict laws require 20% down on mortgages in Texas vs the gnarliest interest free no-doc home loans of California wouldn't have anything to do with that?

----------


## flynn

Together we could go back to the Stone age, where everyone works 16 to 20 hours a day with their bare hands.

----------


## idiom

> Together we could go back to the Stone age, where everyone works 16 to 20 hours a day with their bare hands.


Only those who can afford to rent the stone. Or their own bare hands. Or the 20 hours a day.

Can't let people walking around using resources like free time and not paying their fair share to the community.

----------


## redbluepill

> And when the rent is not collected...?


You mean if a landholder refuses to return to the community the values they created? The same as when landholders refuse to pay now.






> And if the market chooses to game the 'land' values? The market will do its utmost to drive any system of valuation that is becomes the single largest source of economic pain to zero. The market will hire the smartest people on the planet to figure out ways to do it.
> 
> A simple example would be a cartel passing parcels of land around for $1. Their rent would be particularly low... unless you let something other than the market value of the land dictate rent...


Land value is determined already by real estate assessors. The land market is already being gamed. Thats why we have booms and busts every 18 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=HTSKiyDWXys#!








> The state which you state spends its time trying to keep landlords in check, spends its time trying to stop landlords from increasing density and tenant count. So the cost would be directly passed to renters.
> 
> All rent is paid by customers, never by the business. This is also 'basic' economics.


The supply of land is inelastic. Rents depend on what tenants are willing to pay instead of the expenses of landlords, therefore the LVT cannot be passed on to the tenants.

Also key economists back me on this.

Adam Smith: _"A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses"_

And John Stuart Mill: _"A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon anyone else. It does not affect the value or price of agricultural produce, for this is determined by the cost of production in the most unfavourable circumstances, and in those circumstances, as we have so often demonstrated, no rent is paid. A tax on rent, therefore, has no effect other than its obvious one. It merely takes so much from the landlord and transfers it to the State."  John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), English philosopher and social reformer, and an acknowledged major intellectual figure of the 19th century (Section 2, Chapter 3, Book 5, Principles of Political Economy)_
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Not_Passed_On.html

----------


## redbluepill

> Only those who can afford to rent the stone. Or their own bare hands. Or the 20 hours a day.
> 
> Can't let people walking around using resources like free time and not paying their fair share to the community.


Using resources is not the issue. Forceful exclusion from the benefits of nature is.

----------


## showpan

> The supply of land is inelastic. Rents depend on what tenants are willing to pay instead of the expenses of landlords, therefore the LVT cannot be passed on to the tenants.
> 
> Also key economists back me on this.


Wrong, and your economists are also wrong. Just because someone reads a book doesn't mean they know jack.
Rent is based upon supply and demand which is artificially set by the landlord and other factors.
Right now, all those cheap houses are being bought up and turned into rentals. This increases the supply of rents and the price of those cheap homes. Normally it would drive the rental price down but that simply isn't happening because the investors who are buying all the houses are not lowering their price. I am in one of those depressed areas right now trying to buy one of those homes and there are Russian investors buying everything up and paying over the asking price. They are turning them into rental units because the demand here is greater for them now that people have no real jobs and can't afford to buy since they don't have the down payments and now they have bad credit. The Russian "investors" who I suspect are simply laundering their money because the Realtor doesn't question where the cash comes from...aren't concerned how long they sit on their overpriced rents or homes because to them, they have turned their bad money into good and they can take that to the bank. They are also circumventing the "owner occupant" rules by sitting on the homes for a month and then taking 2 months to refurbish them. 90 days and they can either flip them or rent them.
So here we go again, the housing market being manipulated solely by....investors.
Taxes have been reduced, interest rates are low and the savings are NOT being passed on to the consumer.

----------


## redbluepill

> Wrong, and your economists are also wrong. Just because someone reads a book doesn't mean they know jack.
> Rent is based upon supply and demand which is artificially set by the landlord and other factors.
> Right now, all those cheap houses are being bought up and turned into rentals. This increases the supply of rents and the price of those cheap homes. Normally it would drive the rental price down but that simply isn't happening because the investors who are buying all the houses are not lowering their price. I am in one of those depressed areas right now trying to buy one of those homes and there are Russian investors buying everything up and paying over the asking price. They are turning them into rental units because the demand here is greater for them now that people have no real jobs and can't afford to buy since they don't have the down payments and now they have bad credit. The Russian "investors" who I suspect are simply laundering their money because the Realtor doesn't question where the cash comes from...aren't concerned how long they sit on their overpriced rents or homes because to them, they have turned their bad money into good and they can take that to the bank. They are also circumventing the "owner occupant" rules by sitting on the homes for a month and then taking 2 months to refurbish them. 90 days and they can either flip them or rent them.
> So here we go again, the housing market being manipulated solely by....investors.
> Taxes have been reduced, interest rates are low and the savings are NOT being passed on to the consumer.


Lol yeah I'll take your word over a passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and JS Mill. I'm not talking about HOUSES. I'm talking about LAND. Unlike capital (like houses) land is fixed in supply.



_A supply and demand diagram showing the effects of land value taxation. If the supply of land is fixed, the burden of the tax will fall entirely on the land owner, with no deadweight loss._

----------


## showpan

> Lol yeah I'll take your word over a passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and JS Mill. I'm not talking about HOUSES. I'm talking about LAND. Unlike capital (like houses) land is fixed in supply.


really? because I just quoted you ...again:

 Originally Posted by redbluepill 
"* Rents depend on what tenants are willing to pay instead of the expenses of landlords*"

And Mr Smith isn't out there right now looking to buy...is he.

Also, I'll add this as I'm driving down these streets through neighborhoods *in this century* one can't help but notice all of the empty lots where houses once stood. There are entire streets that are completely void of any homes at all except for the tree lined cracked sidewalks that were left behind.

Gee, I wonder what effect this has on home prices and land values....lol

----------


## redbluepill

> really? because I just quoted you ...again:
> 
>  Originally Posted by redbluepill 
> "* Rents depend on what tenants are willing to pay instead of the expenses of landlords*"
> 
> And Mr Smith isn't out there right now looking to buy...is he.
> 
> Also, I'll add this as I'm driving down these streets through neighborhoods *in this century* one can't help but notice all of the empty lots where houses once stood. There are entire streets that are completely void of any homes at all except for the tree lined cracked sidewalks that were left behind.
> 
> Gee, I wonder what effect this has on home prices and land values....lol


I think what you are talking about are conditions as they are now while I'm talking about the effects of the LVT.

----------


## redbluepill

> Also, I'll add this as I'm driving down these streets through neighborhoods in this century one can't help but notice all of the empty lots where houses once stood. There are entire streets that are completely void of any homes at all except for the tree lined cracked sidewalks that were left behind.
> 
> Gee, I wonder what effect this has on home prices and land values....lol


I am well aware of its effects which is why I'm a Georgist.

----------


## redbluepill

> really? because I just quoted you ...again:
> 
>  Originally Posted by redbluepill 
> "* Rents depend on what tenants are willing to pay instead of the expenses of landlords*"l


That doesn't contradict my statement that land is fixed in supply and that this whole discussion was over whether the LVT would simply be passed on to renters, which I have proved would not.

----------


## TheGrinch

> You prefer a tax on productive activity over a tax on unproductive activity? No thank you.


Ummm, actually that's exactly what you're arguing... Consumption by it's nature is unproductive, I mean the terms production and consumption have opposite meanings, so this is not something difficult to understand or anything. Taxing consumption is precisely taxing unproductive activity.

By taxing land that is essential for production, then isn't that exactly what you're arguing? "*You* prefer a tax on productive activity over a tax on unproductive activity? No thank you."

No thank you indeed.

----------


## redbluepill

> Just because someone reads a book doesn't mean they know jack.


...Or writes one of the most important books on economics in history. :-D

----------


## redbluepill

> Ummm, actually that's exactly what you're arguing... Consumption by it's nature is unproductive, I mean the terms production and consumption have opposite meanings, so this is not something difficult to understand or anything. Taxing consumption is precisely taxing unproductive activity.


Consumption is a part of trade which is what economies are based around. You cannot pay your employees without selling goods and services. Have a sales tax of 10% in community A and a sales tax of 0 in community B and see where people will be doing their shopping.
http://savingcommunities.org/issues/...scommerce.html



> By taxing land that is essential for production, then isn't that exactly what you're arguing? "*You* prefer a tax on productive activity over a tax on unproductive activity? No thank you."
> 
> No thank you indeed.


Taxing the land will encourage people to be productive with it. This has been proven throughout history in places like Johannesburg, Japan, Pittsburgh, etc. If I am a landlord why would I want to hold it idle and pay a high LVT when I could be doing something productive with it to make money?

----------


## Danan

> _A supply and demand diagram showing the effects of land value taxation. If the supply of land is fixed, the burden of the tax will fall entirely on the land owner, with no deadweight loss._


This graph shows a situation where no matter how the demand for the good (land in this case) is, the quantity being sold on the market is always the same. The only variable factor (depending solely on the demand curve) is the price.

Just because the amount of land is always the same doesn't mean that the *supply* of land is always the same. Existing land = supply of land is not a proper economic definition of supply. 

Or, "In economics, supply is the *amount of some product* producers are *willing and able to sell* at a* given price* all other factors being held constant" as Wiki says it.

Or, "_Economics_ the *amount of a good* or service *offered for sale*" according to http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/supply

Land currently owned by someone is not necessarly part of the supply. Every indivdual landowner has a personal supply curve. He might be willing to sell (or rent out) some of his land for a given price and more the higher the price is. Or he wouldn't sell his property under any circumstance. Anyway, the aggregated market supply curve will never be completely inelastic. Your graph shows that no matter whether the market price for land is $0 or $20,000,000 the amount sold in a given period will always be the same. That's the definition of a inelastic supply curve, at every given price the *offered*  (not "existing") quantity is the same.

Let's say we run out of new minable gold. At this point the amount of existing gold on this planet is fixed. Does that mean that a tax on gold won't in any way influence the consumer? Is the supply curve of gold in this scenario really totally inelastic, just because the existing amount of it is fixed? Of course not, nobody would say something. The same is true with land. Of course a tax on land hurts sellers *and buyers*.


And I also don't get the appeal to authority in regards to Adam Smith. Of course I believe he was a great thinker, given the times he lived in and the knowledge people had before him. But he was totally wrong an *many* different issues (labor theory of value and so on). There is no reason to believe he has to be right when it comes to land value.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Consumption is a part of trade which is what economies are based around. You cannot pay your employees without selling goods and services. Have a sales tax of 10% in community A and a sales tax of 0 in community B and see where people will be doing their shopping.
> http://savingcommunities.org/issues/...scommerce.html


Forgive me if I have trouble articulating this, it's been a while since I studied consumption/consumerism, but a strong argument has been made that consumerism stands against the idea of capitalism (i.e, savings and investment). Further, in a service-based economy as we have now (as opposed to production-driven economy), you give keynesiasts more excuses to do things like "stimulus" when consumers become tapped out, because our economy is so totally dependent on this overconsumption that aids in these booms and busts. You can't discount keynesianism's role in this, but that also goes hand in hand with a consumer-based economy.

You also might see a sharp decline in folks on government assistance, if wasn't so desirable to overconsume. Do some research on the subject, and you'll see that production, not consumption is vital to an economy (i mean, yes, consumption still matters, but if you only have consumption, not production, then that creates a problem).... So thus, if I flip your statement about consumers going elsewhere to producers, then it only makes the current situation of outsourcing even worse. "If you place tax burden on production here, then they will go where they can produce it cheaper."

There is ample research available on consumption, and no, I do not think it is the key component to vibrant economy, and if anything, only makes the problem far worse.... Not saying that a consumption tax is the answer, but it is surely no worse than taxing production to the point that it goes overseas, leaving our economy at the mercy of whether the consumer is tapped out or not.



> Taxing the land will encourage people to be productive with it. This has been proven throughout history in places like Johannesburg, Japan, Pittsburgh, etc. If I am a landlord why would I want to hold it idle and pay a high LVT when I could be doing something productive with it to make money?


What about if I just want to continue to grow pine trees for the next 20 years on my land, and just use it to harvest deer and turkey until then? My family worked hard to obtain a large number of acres in rural GA, so I don't really care for you to make it less desirable for me to use it the way I see fit, which in this case is not for profit, but just enough to get our worth out of it.  All you'd be doing is necessitating having to sell it because it begins to cost more than it's worth (and at an even lower market price because of the value you've stripped from it being taxed, without necessarily being greatly profitable real-estate). This is not a commercial or residential location, so I really don't want to have to pay taxes as if it were.

----------


## redbluepill

> This graph shows a situation where no matter how the demand for the good (land in this case) is, the quantity being sold on the market is always the same. The only variable factor (depending solely on the demand curve) is the price.
> Just because the amount of land is always the same doesn't mean that the supply of land is always the same. Existing land = supply of land is not a proper economic definition of supply. 
> Or, "In economics, supply is the amount of some product producers are willing and able to sell at a given price all other factors being held constant" as Wiki says it.
> Or, "Economics the amount of a good or service offered for sale" according to http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/supply
> Land currently owned by someone is not necessarly part of the supply. Every indivdual landowner has a personal supply curve. He might be willing to sell (or rent out) some of his land for a given price and more the higher the price is. Or he wouldn't sell his property under any circumstance. Anyway, the aggregated market supply curve will never be completely unelastic. Your graph shows that no matter whether the market price for land is $0 or $20,000,000 the amount sold in a given period will always be the same.
> 
> Let's say we run out of new minable gold. At this point the amount of existing gold on this planet is fixed. Does that mean that a tax on gold won't in any way influence the consumer? Is the supply curve of gold in this scenario really totally unelastic, just because the existing amount of it is fixed? Of course not, nobody would say something. The same is true with land. Of course a tax on land hurts sellers and buyers.


I'm saying supply as in the total amount, not what is or isn't on the market. Although land can come on and off the market land cannot be produced (unlike capital). And yet every producer needs land, directly or indirectly. Changes in land rent or tax does not impact the supply of land. That is why economists say it is in fixed supply.

_A higher price for commodities causes more labor and capital to make itself available. Labor and capital are rewarded for their work. A high price is an incentive to work harder and longer, while a low price is not an incentive to work harder and longer.

The rent of land, however, serves no such incentive function, because the supply of land is fixed. The same amount is available no matter how high or low the price. Buildings are not a part of land rent. Land rent results from the desire made by everyone who lives within a community to use land._

http://www.henrygeorge.org/ted.htm

Here's another source that backs me: 

_One unique characteristic of land is its absolutely fixed supply. The land available to society cannot grow even if payments to landowners rise to infinity; the supply is perfectly inelastic at Qs in Figure 1. If demand is D0, rent per acre will be t0 and total rent is area 0acf._

http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_.../econrent.html







> And I also don't get the appeal to authority in regards to Adam Smith.


I see a lot of 'appeal to authority' when it comes to Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek. Quoting reputable sources to back up one's argument is fair in a debate.




> Of course I believe he was a great thinker, given the times he lived in and the knowledge people had before him. But he was totally wrong an many different issues (labor theory of value and so on). There is no reason to believe he has to be right when it comes to land value.


He was right more often than he was wrong. Same with Mill.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm saying supply as in the total amount, not what is or isn't on the market. Although land can come on and off the market land cannot be produced (unlike capital). And yet every producer needs land, directly or indirectly. Changes in land rent or tax does not impact the supply of land. That is why economists say it is in fixed supply.


Ummm, there is not an infinite supply of oil, water, any natural resource, and we can apply to that to many different manufactured things as well. There is not an infinite supply of labor. Does that make any of those more or less tax-worthy?

So what makes me consuming more of those, rather than more land any more tax-exempt? You seem to want to hold property into this special category that makes it more tax-worthy than other things, when the reality is that many things have fixed supplies, which yes, affects the value of it along with demand. So what?  I don't see where you've found some special exemption where land is categorically different than any other finite resource on earth.


(ETA: to be clear, I don't liek taxes any more than any of you, but if we're talking what's tax-worthy or not, I think the argument can easily be made that consumpiton is better taxed than finding an arbitrary distinction, that really isn't even a distinction, to think we can just tax land and it will make these other taxes go way. History rpoves that taxing production only either moves it to lower costs elsewhere, or is passed on to the consumer).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> * And yet every producer needs land, directly or indirectly.*


I'm going to challenge this point.  If I produce intangible things (like "intellectual property" or do public speaking), I generally don't need land at all.  I can produce my services/products on one piece of land as easily as another.  In some fields, "products" can be created entirely on a computer.

----------


## showpan

Just wait until he gets older and decides to buy some property for himself....then we will see how much tax he is willing to pay...lol

----------


## TheGrinch

> Just wait until he gets older and decides to buy some property for himself....then we will see how much tax he is willing to pay...lol


As simple as that is, it might be the best argument in the thread. The American Dream is to be able to work to own a house and property (or whatever you desire). Land should be the ends to work as your means, not only being able to own land as a means, not an end. 

It absolutely is one of the ends of production, to own land your own piece of land to use as you see fit, not to be forced to commercialize it or sell it.

Every land-owner I know has worked very hard to obtain it, so I have no idea why they can only have it for production, and not as a reward for their production.

----------


## rpwi

> Every land-owner I know has worked very hard to obtain it, so I have no idea why they can only have it for production, and not as a reward for their production.


That is not possible.

Total wealth = stored labor + land.  

Land can not be a product of labor...therefore total wealth > stored labor.  

In this fashion it is not possible to 'earn' a piece of land.  Society can create a number of constructs by which land is subdivided and allocated.  Perhaps by heritage, perhaps as a multiple of labor, or perhaps as a fixed allowance.  But there is no logical economic rational that one can gain exclusive domain over land through labor.  I mean...could the act of planting a flag in the ground (labor) justify owning an island, country or even the western hemisphere?  The idea strongly contradicts reasonable thought.

----------


## redbluepill

> Forgive me if I have trouble articulating this, it's been a while since I studied consumption/consumerism, but a strong argument has been made that consumerism stands against the idea of capitalism (i.e, savings and investment). Further, in a service-based economy as we have now (as opposed to production-driven economy), you give keynesiasts more excuses to do things like "stimulus" when consumers become tapped out, because our economy is so totally dependent on this overconsumption that aids in these booms and busts. You can't discount keynesianism's role in this, but that also goes hand in hand with a consumer-based economy.


I see overconsumption as a symptom of a much larger problem with our economic system (which is discussed in the videos I posted previously). But you're right that our current system gives Keynesians excuses to spend spend spend. Be assured that Georgists are opposed to Keynesian economics.

LVT is the one tax that can reverse the trend for several reasons. Post WW2 Pittsburgh experienced a "renaissance" after adopting the LVT. Landholders knew they couldn't just let the land sit idle. They had to be productive with it if they wanted a profit!

I am a big supporter of local/small businesses. The LVT helps small businesses since they tend to be efficient with land usage compared to big businesses. It also keeps land prices low which is good news for new businesses.




> You also might see a sharp decline in folks on government assistance, if wasn't so desirable to overconsume.


You will see a sharp drop in poverty with the LVT naturally resulting in a sharp decline in people on govt assistance.







> Do some research on the subject, and you'll see that production, not consumption is vital to an economy (i mean, yes, consumption still matters, but if you only have consumption, not production, then that creates a problem)....


I agree. A healthier economy would see a good mix of both production and consumption.




> So thus, if I flip your statement about consumers going elsewhere to producers, then it only makes the current situation of outsourcing even worse. "If you place tax burden on production here, then they will go where they can produce it cheaper."


And I propose a system that reverses that trend. I want an end to income tax, taxes on improvements, as well as sales taxes. Land speculators (who produce nothing) would be the ones hit by the LVT.




> There is ample research available on consumption, and no, I do not think it is the key component to vibrant economy, and if anything, only makes the problem far worse.... Not saying that a consumption tax is the answer, but it is surely no worse than taxing production to the point that it goes overseas, leaving our economy at the mercy of whether the consumer is tapped out or not.


Well I certainly don't argue that consumption alone is THE key component to a vibrant economy, just that its A key component. As stated before, you need a healthy dose of both production and consumption.





> What about if I just want to continue to grow pine trees for the next 20 years on my land, and just use it to harvest deer and turkey until then?


Your improvements are already assessed separately from the rest of the land value. You don't pay a tax on your improvements.
LVT = Land value - improvements on the land.




> My family worked hard to obtain a large number of acres in rural GA, so I don't really care for you to make it less desirable for me to use it the way I see fit, which in this case is not for profit, but just enough to get our worth out of it. All you'd be doing is necessitating having to sell it because it begins to cost more than it's worth (and at an even lower market price because of the value you've stripped from it being taxed, without necessarily being greatly profitable real-estate). This is not a commercial or residential location, so I really don't want to have to pay taxes as if it were.


Rural locations would be generally taxed at a much lower rate than urban and some suburban land. 

Someone asked about exemption status or at least reduction in land tax for those who hold the land as a conservation site. I'm pretty open to this idea (but at the same time I can see it abused by speculators).

----------


## redbluepill

How land speculation leads to our boom and bust economy: http://www.henrygeorge.org/bust.htm

----------


## redbluepill

> I'm going to challenge this point.  If I produce intangible things (like "intellectual property" or do public speaking), I generally don't need land at all.  I can produce my services/products on one piece of land as easily as another.  In some fields, "products" can be created entirely on a computer.


If you're alive you need land. In order to be you need to be somewhere.

----------


## TheGrinch

> That is not possible.
> 
> Total wealth = stored labor + land.  
> 
> Land can not be a product of labor...therefore total wealth > stored labor.  
> 
> In this fashion it is not possible to 'earn' a piece of land.  Society can create a number of constructs by which land is subdivided and allocated.  Perhaps by heritage, perhaps as a multiple of labor, or perhaps as a fixed allowance.  But there is no logical economic rational that one can gain exclusive domain over land through labor.  I mean...could the act of planting a flag in the ground (labor) justify owning an island, country or even the western hemisphere?  The idea strongly contradicts reasonable thought.


If you're referring to how land was originally allotted in this country, that doesn't have anything more to do with me than some people happening to share my same race has to do with me somehow owing reparations, even though I have no indication that anyone from my family even owned slaves. My family worked to buy the land, so there was nothing arbitrary about it, unless you're against property ownership in general (which I think is something that only someone who doesn't own property would disrespect what you have to do to do so). 

Of course you can obtain property through labor... Unless you have investors or debtors who are wiling to take on the risk without you having put in the time and labor to show you're good for it, you can't even obtain land the easier way without a mass-amount of labor/collateral to even get a loan, let alone be able to buy it outright. How is it not logical economic rationale that land is bought and sold just like every other commodity in the free world? How some might have underhandedly obtained the land and resources in the first place does not make the legitimate sales centuries later any less legitimate, again unless you want to just punish everyone for the way things were 400 years ago. If that's the case, we really should all go to Europe and let the native Americans repopulate...

So no, unless you're a government with a strong-standing army, you're about 400-500 years to late to where "planting a flag" might have been acceptable as a means for obtaining land... When we say "labor" today, we mean that you purchased it from a willing party, and thus it's yours. If you just want to talk about historically, then wait for the system collapse with the rest of the ones who refuse to accept that the world isn't ideal, or don't hold your breath that your theoretical concept about how I somehow don't have a right to land I bought is going to be accepted.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you're alive you need land. In order to be you need to be somewhere.


If I'm on a plane, helicopter, or ship I don't need land. (I can always have refueling vehicles supply when I run low).  Although it's not feasible now, there will probably be a time when people can live in space.  No land required.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It has been proposed by Frank Chodorov, Thomas Paine, and other libertarians.


Neither of them were libertarian.  Chodorov was part of the "Old Right", and Paine a classical liberal.

----------


## redbluepill

> Ummm, there is not an infinite supply of oil, water, any natural resource, and we can apply to that to many different manufactured things as well. There is not an infinite supply of labor. Does that make any of those more or less tax-worthy? So what makes me consuming more of those, rather than more land any more tax-exempt? You seem to want to hold property into this special category that makes it more tax-worthy than other things, when the reality is that many things have fixed supplies, which yes, affects the value of it along with demand. So what? I don't see where you've found some special exemption where land is categorically different than any other finite resource on earth.


Oil, water, and other natural resources are a part of land and subject to the LVT.

"Land: The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products."

http://www.henrygeorge.org/def2.htm

"Term land Definition: One of four basic categories of resources, or factors of production (the other three are labor, capital, and entrepreneurship). This category includes the natural resources used to produce goods and services, including the land itself; the minerals and nutrients in the ground; the water, wildlife, and vegetation on the surface; and the air above."

http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/land

Labor is not fixed. It increases when population increases.






> (ETA: to be clear, I don't liek taxes any more than any of you, but if we're talking what's tax-worthy or not, I think the argument can easily be made that consumpiton is better taxed than finding an arbitrary distinction, that really isn't even a distinction, to think we can just tax land and it will make these other taxes go way. History rpoves that taxing production only either moves it to lower costs elsewhere, or is passed on to the consumer).


And LVT does not tax production.You see less production with a higher sales tax. The opposite is true with the LVT (as historically demonstrated). Tell me, how is a land speculator productive? I strongly suggest researching the LVT and Henry George and its many benefits. :-)

----------


## redbluepill

> If I'm on a plane, helicopter, or ship I don't need land. (I can always have refueling vehicles supply when I run low).  Although it's not feasible now, there will probably be a time when people can live in space.  No land required.


Land includes open space. 

Term land Definition: One of four basic categories of resources, or factors of production (the other three are labor, capital, and entrepreneurship). This category includes the natural resources used to produce goods and services, including the land itself; the minerals and nutrients in the ground; the water, wildlife, and vegetation on the surface; *and the air above.*
http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/land

----------


## redbluepill

> Neither of them were libertarian.  Chodorov was part of the "Old Right", and Paine a classical liberal.


Rodrick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals". Both did just that. 

Some intellectuals on the Old Right were indeed libertarians. Chodorov himself was a major influence on Rothbard. 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard141.html

----------


## redbluepill

> Just wait until he gets older and decides to buy some property for himself....then we will see how much tax he is willing to pay...lol


0% of what I produce and 100% of what I take. I believe in both freedom and justice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Land includes open space. 
> 
> Term land Definition: One of four basic categories of resources, or factors of production (the other three are labor, capital, and entrepreneurship). This category includes the natural resources used to produce goods and services, including the land itself; the minerals and nutrients in the ground; the water, wildlife, and vegetation on the surface; *and the air above.*
> http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/land


Yes, some people accept that definition.  Some don't.  Regardless, I've never heard of geoists who deal with airspace as if it were land.  The is no fixity of airspace (assuming we include vehicles that can soar well above the limits of jets/planes) as there is with land.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rodrick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals". Both did just that. 
> 
> Some intellectuals on the Old Right were indeed libertarians. Chodorov himself was a major influence on Rothbard. 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard141.html


A lot of people in the Libertarian Tradition aren't/weren't libertarian.  Rothbard was influenced by a lot of people (as Mises called him, "The Great System Builder"), so I don't see how that is relevant.  That's a fallacious appeal to authority, too.

----------


## rpwi

> If you're referring to how land was originally allotted in this country, that doesn't have anything more to do with me than some people happening to share my same race has to do with me somehow owing reparations, even though I have no indication that anyone from my family even owned slaves.


An extreme economic analogy to illustrate why second generation land ownership doesn't solve the 'flag-planting' mockery of logic.

Image that one sailer is stranded on a tropical island.  He lays claim exclusive domain to the island.  A second sailer arrives.  He buys half the island for a future payment of 500 coconuts and 500 fish harvested.  That the first could sell in essence political considerations (by which land is formulated) for labor is troubling to anybody who thinks deeply on the subject. 

The first sailor dies and the second sailer inherits the island.  

A third and forth sailer arrive landless and acquire land in exchange for labor.  The second sailor...while initially a victim of miss-allocated land, is now an aggressor...and a net benefactor as well.

Even though the second sailor was not awarded land from 'first possession', he can and does take advantage of the system to take in a greater share of wealth then is properly apportionment to his quality of labor.

The primary mechanisms by which 2nd generation landowners can benefit are from inflation (buying land at X and selling at 2X...which later generations don't have the ability to do).  He can benefit from a growing population and/or growing demand.  He can also benefit disproportionately from inheritance.




> How is it not logical economic rationale that land is bought and sold just like every other commodity in the free world?


There is a powerful argument that it should be.  Land that can be flexibly bought and sold, encourages creativity and productivity.  It simplifies greatly wealth creation and in general makes for a much efficient solution than political factors of distribution.  The issue is that land is fixed in supply and not a product of labor.  Ideally, a slice of land (or commensurate share of wealth) would be accessible to all.  This is not practical...so a little inequality is healthy as perfection is too economically costly to achieve.   The problem is that this minor annoyance of land mis-distribution can become major and a situation can arise in which one large class of people works for the benefits of land, while another class merely rents the land and contributes no significant share of labor on their part.  It is doubtful that such a scenario would take place literally with land itself...but rather by financial tools in which land could be controlled and milked indirectly (sometimes very indirectly).

This last point is quite significant as the Georgists have never and seem to have no little interest in addressing.  If land baron X exchanges his land to peasants Y for a big loan, then the bulk of the revenue from land still goes to the 'land baron'.  In fact in a modern economy it makes little difference whether one rents out land or loans out money.  Indeed, because the land baron would not prefer to manage the land (easier done for those who work it) he would and does prefer financial instruments instead.  He will NOT with LVT be taxed!  Because land in a market economy is fungible with other assets...does that mean we need to nationalize all or a significant portion of property and distribute it according to political considerations?  No.  That would be foolish.  The capitalist system is very efficient and simple and is an ideal mechanism to facilitate wealth creation, preservation and allocation.  However it is flawed...to what degree and how it could be fixed...I do not know.  But I do know it is flawed.




> How some might have underhandedly obtained the land and resources in the first place does not make the legitimate sales centuries later any less legitimate, again unless you want to just punish everyone for the way things were 400 years ago. If that's the case, we really should all go to Europe and let the native Americans repopulate...


Where do you draw the line?  If the first generation did no acquire wealth from landownership honestly...then what about the second generation?  Third?  Forth?

----------


## redbluepill

> Yes, some people accept that definition.  Some don't.  Regardless, I've never heard of geoists who deal with airspace as if it were land.  The is no fixity of airspace (assuming we include vehicles that can soar well above the limits of jets/planes) as there is with land.


You are using the physical definition of land. I am referring to the economic meaning. We cannot simply call land whatever we want to call it. Thats why we distinguish between facts, false notions, and opinions.

No fixity of airspace? So our airspace is increasing?

And geoists do discuss airspace. Fred Foldvary mentions it in this article: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...-of-land-rent/

----------


## redbluepill

> A lot of people in the Libertarian Tradition aren't/weren't libertarian.  Rothbard was influenced by a lot of people (as Mises called him, "The Great System Builder"), so I don't see how that is relevant.


You do know libertarianism doesn't necessarily mean anarchism?




> That's a fallacious appeal to authority, too.


It demonstrates LVT's appeal to lovers of liberty and limited government.

----------


## rpwi

> If I'm on a plane, helicopter, or ship I don't need land. (I can always have refueling vehicles supply when I run low).  Although it's not feasible now, there will probably be a time when people can live in space.  No land required.


Well, a significant amount of land is required to produce the helicopter and fuel needed to start with. 

But your point that one can produce without land, while perhaps lacking an ideal example, is correct.  The issue is that one can not consume without land.  So if I sell my services as a singer...my dependence on land is by no means reduced.  Because I don't offer land for sale, and aggregate wealth = stored labor + land, then this means I will have to offer a disproportionate share of my labor (in this case singing).  While I perhaps may not pay anything for land to sing (well perhaps a concert hall...but assume that is negligible), the issue is that my landlessness affects the ratio by which I can sell my singing for money...and additionally the degree by which my money will buy land (of principal concern...food).

The science-fiction scenario by which private land is considered is most interesting.  Consider a space station.  By some, this would constitute no land.  In my book in it land mixed with stored labor...but say we don't consider it land...  The same abuses that can come with landownership (such as the tropical island scenario) can arise.  The owner of the space station may charge rent in excess of his contributions because this would reflect the control he has and the dependency of those that didn't own part of the space station suffered from.  He could charge for oxygen for example or any number of factors by which dependency is created by living on a space station.  While man may escape to outer-space...he can't really escape the nagging economic questions that haunt us here on earth.

----------


## TheGrinch

Well then, I wish you the best of luck in convincing everyone that the property they worked hard to acquire doesn't mean squat because 400 years ago some Europeans were dicks to native Americans. You'll probably find plenty of common ground with those demanding reparations for slavery, but you're punishing people who had nothing to do with travesties that occurred centuries ago.

I'm truly sorry that we do not all stand on equal ground when we pop out of the womb, I wish life were fairer, but you cannot just expect to turn back time and take what people have worked their whole lives to earn, just because some random people, in many cases unrelated to them were dicks at a time when the world was dickish (to put it kindly)... You can only work to make things better and equitable, and that doesn't include stripping property that was legitimately purchased (just like you guys like to lump in resources and land, I believe in property, whether I buy a Snickers or I own a home).




> An extreme economic analogy to illustrate why second generation land ownership doesn't solve the 'flag-planting' mockery of logic.
> 
> Image that one sailer is stranded on a tropical island.  He lays claim exclusive domain to the island.  A second sailer arrives.  He buys half the island for a future payment of 500 coconuts and 500 fish harvested.  That the first could sell in essence political considerations (by which land is formulated) for labor is troubling to anybody who thinks deeply on the subject. 
> 
> The first sailor dies and the second sailer inherits the island.  
> 
> A third and forth sailer arrive landless and acquire land in exchange for labor.  The second sailor...while initially a victim of miss-allocated land, is now an aggressor...and a net benefactor as well.
> 
> Even though the second sailor was not awarded land from 'first possession', he can and does take advantage of the system to take in a greater share of wealth then is properly apportionment to his quality of labor.
> ...

----------


## rpwi

> Well then, I wish you the best of luck in convincing everyone that the property they worked hard to acquire doesn't mean squat because 400 years ago some Europeans were dicks to native Americans.


Well hard work is somewhat relative.  Don't you think it is at least somewhat unjust that, all things being equal, two individuals can contribute identical amounts labor (and of identical quality) and not receive identical in terms of quality shares of land?  

I do not rationalize the native americans.  Many of them were quite nasty with each other and stole/conquered land from earlier tribes.  My issue is that we can not both use history as a tool to sanctify the legitimacy of any type of landownership...but then overlook history at the point in which private land was first inceptionalized. 




> You'll probably find plenty of common ground with those demanding reparations for slavery, but you're punishing people who had nothing to do with travesties that occurred centuries ago.


Those wanting reparations are quite confused...  The land question is between those who own or finance land, and those who don't (roughly).  Reparations are about transferring wealth from individuals sharing one set of genes to individuals sharing another set of genes.  There is little economic logic to reparations...as we all have had ancestors who have been thoroughly mistreated.  It is racism in reverse.




> I'm truly sorry that we do not all stand on equal ground when we pop out of the womb, I wish life were fairer, but you cannot just expect to turn back time and take what people have worked their whole lives to earn, just because some random people, in many cases unrelated to them were dicks at a time when the world was dickish (to put it kindly)... You can only work to make things better and equitable, and that doesn't include stripping property that was legitimately purchased (just like you guys like to lump in resources and land, I believe in property, whether I buy a Snickers or I own a home).


I have no interest in undoing time.  Merely to reexamine the means by which time has been used to rationalize and justify some forms of land ownership.

Landownership is not bad per say...  Disproportionate land ownership is not too bad either as equality is too difficult to obtain.  The issue arises when things get out of whack and our core dependencies are used against the majority by a minority.  You surely must agree it would be problematic if one person owned all the land in the US, right?  What if two owned the entire country?  Three?  Where do you draw the line?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Landownership is not bad per say...  Disproportionate land ownership is not too bad either as equality is too difficult to obtain.


Monopolies commissions can play a part.  Nothing wrong land ownership as long as it does not end up in the hands of a few. 




> The issue arises when things get out of whack and our core dependencies are used against the majority by a minority.  You surely must agree it would be problematic if one person owned all the land in the US, right?  What if two owned the entire country?  Three?  Where do you draw the line?


The problem with land ownership is the landowners appropriating Commonwealth in the form of land values - values created by the community.  Legalised theft.

----------


## idiom

In my country, the majority of people are landowners. Those who are not are for the most part minorities who used to own land that was seized by the government without compensation. It is slowly being given back.

Every time I have seen the government assume ownership of land for the common good it has lead to poverty. Fortunately it has not been to a great extent in this country. Historical examples of the government assuming ownership of land for the common good generally lead to apocalypticly scaled famines.

LVT advocates a minority, possibly elected, possibly not, seizing all the land from the people (who are all land owners in most of the countries I visit) and renting it back to the people until they are impoverished.

How can anyone possibly think this is a good idea, unless they plan to be that elected official?

----------


## Carson

> In my country, the majority of people are landowners. Those who are not are for the most part minorities who used to own land that was seized by the government without compensation. It is slowly being given back.
> 
> Every time I have seen the government assume ownership of land for the common good it has lead to poverty. Fortunately it has not been to a great extent in this country. Historical examples of the government assuming ownership of land for the common good generally lead to apocalypticly scaled famines.
> 
> LVT advocates a minority, possibly elected, possibly not, seizing all the land from the people (who are all land owners in most of the countries I visit) and renting it back to the people until they are impoverished.
> 
> How can anyone possibly think this is a good idea, unless they plan to be that elected official?


In my country many of the nations resources and land are under the stewardship of the government. 

I see many things under this stewardship that I feel are violations. Only in Alaska have I heard of anyone receiving any compensation for the oil drilled. They also are given a say over the exploitation of those resources. To an extent anyway.

A system could be set up in the rest of the country to do the same. It could get more people involved. Perhaps it is too easy and too cheep to buy off the few necessary now. 

I mean if conservation is truly your goal.

Another is the utilization of our National Forest. Some say that more people are camping now. I'm not totally convinced. I do see the forest service closing down places we have camped for generations. That is crowding more and more people into smaller locations. If it is truly the case that more are trying to use the forest, it would make sense helping us spread out more and more and utilize more to the forest. 

There should be more dispersed camping. Not a move to end it.



stewardship
[stoo-erd-ship, styoo-] Example Sentences
stew·ard·ship
  [stoo-erd-ship, styoo-] Show IPA
noun
1.
the position and duties of a steward,  a person who acts as the surrogate of another or others, especially by managing property, financial affairs, an estate, etc.
2.
the responsible overseeing and protection of something considered worth caring for and preserving: New regulatory changes will result in better stewardship of lands that are crucial for open space and wildlife habitat. 


P.S. Agenda 21 is pushing us out of our forest and open lands and into high density cities. In the suburbs they are already implementing building codes that put houses right up against each other. The very thing we had to move away from in our countries early history because the cities kept burning down.

----------


## idiom

> In my country many of the nations resources and land are under the stewardship of the government. 
> 
> I see many things under this stewardship that I feel are violations. Only in Alaska have I heard of anyone receiving any compensation for the oil drilled. They also are given a say over the exploitation of those resources. To an extent anyway.
> 
> A system could be set up in the rest of the country to do the same. It could get more people involved. Perhaps it is too easy and too cheep to buy off the few necessary now. 
> 
> I mean if conservation is truly your goal.
> 
> Another is the utilization of our National Forest. Some say that more people are camping now. I'm not totally convinced. I do see the forest service closing down places we have camped for generations. That is crowding more and more people into smaller locations. If it is truly the case that more are trying to use the forest, it would make sense helping us spread out more and more and utilize more to the forest. 
> ...


LVT puts all property in the hands of the government and puts the entire $6 Trillion+ cost of government on the people it rents it back to. Somehow this system is supposed to end up creating equality and opportunity and not centralising power.

----------


## Carson

> LVT puts all property in the hands of the government and puts the entire $6 Trillion+ cost of government on the people it rents it back to. Somehow this system is supposed to end up creating equality and opportunity and not centralising power.



I have no idea what LVT is and if you didn't care enough to spell it out I'm sure not going to waste any time figuring it out or answering you...

or am I?

----------


## idiom

> I have no idea what LVT is and if you didn't care enough to spell it out I'm sure not going to waste any time figuring it out or answering you...
> 
> or am I?


I have no idea. I have even read the entire thread.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> LVT puts all property in the hands of the government


*That is 100% NONSENSE!!!!*  LVT is a tax shift nothing else. *Land ownerships stays the same. Business stays the same*. Although *ideally* a monopolies commission should ensure land does not end up in the hands of a few as in the UK, where 0.6% of the population own 70% of the land - a monopolies commission should applies to LVT or not.

LVT (Land VALUE Tax) taxes land by *its value* - no income, property or sales taxes. The aim is to reduce taxes to one prime tax, LVT.  Why Land?  Because the values are created economic community activity.  

Henry George aimed for only one tax LVT, the Single Tax. That is great for personal taxes - none except the value of the land you occupy. Very simple.  Geoists want taxes on LAND and its RESOURCES.  An e.g., a taxi driver pays for a medallion because he uses "our" streets, which is commonwealth, to make money.  LAND is the sea to the limit, seabed, lakes, electromagnetic spectrum.  Natural resources extracted are taxed, as nature made them, not men. What men make they keep. 

I am a "Geoist" (geo relates to land) not a Georgist, which is based on Henry George. Geoiism gives freedom. The more you earn the more you keep, like all of it as there are no production taxes. Everyone gains. That is everyone. 

LVT is very simple. Why these people continually tell lies about LVT is beyond me, as they have everything to gain.

There is a massive amount of LVT explations on the web. Look at them.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Every time I have seen the government assume ownership of land for the common good it has lead to poverty.


Look at Hong Kong.

----------


## EcoWarrier

*ONLY ONE TAX - GEOGISM

*Income tax is a tax on your earnings - your work. It penalises your productivity. It is a destructive tax sometimes called bad taxes. Income tax is as daft as the window tax.

Full Georgism is no income tax only taxation on the values of the land not the building. 
Corporation tax may still apply.
Geoism is highly capitalistic - with no boom and busts so stable. 

What the left hate about the capitalist system with justification is:

The boom and bustsIt needs excessive controlThe wealth ends up with a few people.A layer of poverty is created, which is out of proportion to the collective wealth of the nation.
Geogism is self controlling to a large degree and spreads wealth around more evenly. It promotes economic production and growth.

If someone lives in an area of high land values and their income has decreased and they can't afford their taxes, then they sell up as per usual and move to a cheaper area.

Values soak into land, the values get higher. If there is a shortage of washing machines at £300 each, makers can make more to maintain the price at £300. If land prices rise in a city centre, you can't make more land in the city centre. 

*The land fuelled boom & bust cycle, which may turn to a crash (slump/crash is in bold):*

When the economy is rising, economic progress occurs.Quantity of goods increases because of labour and capital (capital is machines, etc, made by man).The land supply remains the same. Demand for land increases, land supply remains static it cannot be made like consumer goods.Result: increase of land prices.Speculators are looking for a place to store the value of their money and increase the value.Land, is increasing in value over time, is an attractive "investment"Speculative demand shifts demand for land up.Land prices rise more.Artificially high land values mislead landholding consumers into thinking they have more wealth than they actually have. Home owners see their land/house value rise, spurring additional consumer spending - the wealth effect.This results in a temporary increase in the standard of livingSpeculative demand for land increases yet more in response to the price increases, raising the land price again.However, land prices have now risen above a rate many potential wealth producers can afford - manufactures, services, people who need homes to live, etc.The market flattens*Some businesses fail**At this stage, businesses fail without being replaced.**High land prices prevent potential business replacements.**The most recent speculative land buyers begin to have a hard time selling at a price that justifies the original purchase, due to a fall in economy productivity.**Prices remain steady as landholders attempt to ride out the slump**Because the slump is caused by the high land prices, it cannot end until prices collapse back to a level that can be sustained by economic producer demand.**Land (house) owners find themselves in negative equity as the land (house is worth less than what they owe banks.**Many land (house) owners cannot pay their debts to banks.**Banks who lent money for land (houses) cannot retrieve their owed money.**Banks do not have enough money to lend to productive economic growth businesses.**Banks call in loans to productive economic growth businesses.**Many productive economic growth businesses go under.**Productive economic growth businesses slow down.**Demand for land is removed as speculators move out of the land market.*Land prices drop and being within reach of economic producers, the economy begins to grow again.

Spiralling land prices are the early warning signs of a bust.

*Land Value Tax with no Income Tax:*

Taxing the value of land stops land speculation and land prices running out of control, preventing financial crashes.Money is directed to invest into economic growth industries, not land, which does not make the economy grow.Removing income tax makes people productive as they not are penalised.Taxing land values gets at the values of the economy that soak into the finite supply of land.Taxes extracted from Land Values can be used to provide essential economic growth infrastructure.The infrastructure makes a community more economically productive.The infrastructure makes land more desirable and in demand.Those in districts with high land values because of the community paid for infrastructure via their taxes pay more Land Value TaxThose is districts where land is not in demand pay less Land Value Tax.The system prevents:
Boom & bustsHigh housing prices - housing is affordableSocial housing paid for by taxpayers - the private sector copes with housing.Concentrations of wealth by the few - Distributes wealth more evenlyLand hoarding - Re-distributes land automatically as "all" land is taxableTax collection is easy and cheap as land is fixed - it cannot be taken off-shore or moved. The tax cannot be dodged.The tax burden is less as the economy is stable and grows.Tax burden is reduced - virtually no taxpayers money is put into social housing as the private sector copes with housing.
*The three factors of production basics (land is very different to the other two):*

LAND (Can't be made - in finite supply)LABOUR (in much supply)CAPITAL (what men make. Can be made and more of if needed)
The values of Labour + Capital means the values soak into the land - that is what you tax.

You want a piece of wood to be a hanger for your coat. 

LAND (the tree stands on the land)LABOUR (your effort in cutting the wood from the tree.CAPITAL (Man made - the saw to cut the wood from the tree)
The hanger needs all three.

----------


## EcoWarrier

*Land The Mother of All Monopolies*

It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public.
_- Winston Churchill_

What Churchill was saying, was that each piece of land is unique, it cannot be moved. Just because one piece of land is worth double what another is, you can't move the lower value land to the higher value land to equalise the price. 

Land is unique and special being *completly different from movable objects* like machinery, equipment and raw materials. If the price of cement rises in one location than another the cheaper cement will move to the location where the prices are higher equalising the price of cement (making cement cheaper) - moveable goods and service equalize the price (value). In that sense land ownership is the mother of all monopolies. That is anyone who owns land, even the owner/occupier.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> LVT puts all property in the hands of the government and puts the entire $6 Trillion+ cost of government on the people it rents it back to. Somehow this system is supposed to end up creating equality and opportunity and not centralising power.


Right away I thought about writing, "Uh-oh, you just invited a full-on breakout of some LVT Watchtower tracts," but thought I'd sit back and watch the fun unfold instead.  And sure enough, out came the one man "No! You can still 'own' it so long as you pay the rent!" brigade.  LOL

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Right away I thought about writing, "Uh-oh, you just invited a full-on breakout of some LVT Watchtower tracts," but thought I'd sit back and watch the fun


LVT  is just a *TAX SHIFT, NOT COMMUNISM*.  That well known Commie Winston Churchill was a big fan.  Have you heard of him?

For your understanding:
*Land Value Tax is just a TAX SHIFT!*  LVT *reclaims* community created economic growth that soaked into the land that crystallizes as *land values*. *The owner of the land did not create the value in the land, community activity did.*

Geoism also taxes land's resources as they were made by nature not men - if you extract copper ore you pay the community as it is *common weath*. Pigovian taxes are also applied - as in taxing tobacco and alcohol, congestion charging, etc.. 

There is no taxes on production such as Income and sales taxes.

Get back to me on what you do not understand.  Geoism is Simple:

*Keep taxes away from production.* *Tax commonly created wealth - LVT is the core of this, but not he only one.**Leave private wealth alone - not taxed.**Tax unearned income - discouraging parasitical economic activity. * *Use Pigovian taxes where necessary.**Have one simple personal tax for individuals and small businesses*

What did you learn?  You have a long way to go for something so simple.

----------


## idiom

> Look at Hong Kong.


Behold the agricultural powerhouse that is Hong Kong...

LVT is also the most easily dodged and gamed tax. So its a tax on the stupid and the poor.




> Geoism also taxes land's resources as they were made by nature not men


Well then nature can pay the taxes.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Behold the agricultural powerhouse that is Hong Kong...
> 
> LVT is also the most easily dodged and gamed tax. So its a tax on the stupid and the poor.


You must stop making things up. The location of land is known to the inch.  LVT CANNOT be avoided or dodged. Common sense tells you that. It cannot be taken off-shore to other countries and tax havens. 

Do write stupid comments. If you do not know, ask. It will be explained to you.

----------


## idiom

Then stop providing stupid examples of successful resource usage taxation. Hong Kong and Singapore to not apply LVT to the places from which their economic strength comes.

Imagine if they actually did apply it to their greatest national resource use, shipping lanes. Everybody who used their harbours would have intensely heavy taxes, and the shippers would simply move to different ports.

Do you really the mega banks and other financial powerhouses really notice the slightly high office rents? The people who notice are the poor in Singapore and Hong Kong. If they actually have somewhere to live it is the size of a cupboard.



You also seem to have a massive failure to understand who pays taxes. It is always people not businesses. Businesses never pay taxes. Either their owners do, their customers, or they don't expand in order to avoid taxation.

Imagine I own a copper mine that lives on a giant copper vein I am renting from the government.  If you place a tax on all the copper I extract, I am not going to pay that. Instead of $1 per unit of copper, I will charge $2 even if you tax is only $.50. I won't care you have given me cover to raise my prices. Lets say the refiners buys it at $2. The refiners isn't going to take they hit, they raise their prices too. Lets say the copper goes to a laptop manufacturer, they don't take the hit, they just raise prices too. Eventually the laptops just double in price, the only people who notice are the people who had difficulty paying for laptops before. Students, and the poor.

More likely copper production moves somewhere cheaper, or an alternative for copper is found making all the copper reserves in your country worthless.

Its genius really.


Lets look at gaming the land values shall we? We have an entire district of farmers. LVT is coming and they are looking at paying a 200% per annum property tax in order to raise the revenues required. All the farmers start selling land back and forth for $1.

The market value for the land parcels is now $1. Your tax is now only going to raise $2 per farm.

I am wondering about this because several times in this thread it has been claimed that market values will determine the taxation, not any government input.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You must stop making things up. The location of land is known to the inch.  LVT CANNOT be avoided or dodged.


You're the one who must stop making things up.  Like your leaps of logic.  The location of land can't be avoided or dodged. A tax on ANYTHING can be.  There are no magical or mystical properties about any tax that makes it avoidance-proof or dodge-proof.  Both history and common sense should tell you that. Just the private property tax exemptions alone on more than a billion dollars worth of land and property in just four counties in North Dakota should prove the point nicely. And guess what - the location of all that land is known to the inch. 

Enterprise Zones, Renaissance Zones, etc., call them whatever you will, there are countless ways of gaming any tax system to avoid taxes and gain artificial competitive advantages over others (ultimately the "stupid and the poor", as idiom wrote) -- basically anyone not well-healed or politically connected.  That's not an argument against LVT. It's an argument against the ludicrous, specious claim that "LVT cannot be avoided or dodged" given that "the location of the land is known to the inch".  

Like you said, "Do write stupid comments. If you do not know, ask. It will be explained to you."

----------


## idiom

The other obvious hit to those who live hand to mouth is fresh fruits and vegetables. LVT would cause a massive hike in the prices of those causing serious detriment to the diets of the poor causing serious downstream health problems.

Its like a system designed to create impoverished serfs.

Basic economics says what you tax, you get less of.

If you tax resource exclusively you will end up with an economy that is service and consumption based... Essentially a giant bubble economy with no serious production. Just like Hong Kong.

----------


## showpan

Boy was this thread hijacked....lol...just as our economic system was.

(We need to eliminate or reduce taxes not shift them)

Almost all economist theories are bull$#@! at this point because they are simply not applicable to our present "monopolized" situation and here is why:

Homes are a good example:
Today, only about 30% of all homes in the US are owned outright. But this doesn't mean that 30% are owner occupant, it just means that 30% do not have a mortgage. Once you factor in owners who rent their homes and buildings, this number is considerably smaller at about 15%. Most of these rental units are corporate owned and since a home with a mortgage is also corporate owned, that means that about 85% of all homes in this country are corporate owned as of 2009. Of course this number is slightly higher today.

http://www.corelogic.com/about-us/ne...-year-ago.aspx

http://www.census.gov/housing/ahs/data/national.html

Ok, now that we know that corporations own most of our homes, lets see who these corporations are:

http://finance.yahoo.com/

Now go to finance.yahoo.com. Look up a bank or company by using it's ticker symbol and click on "get quotes", then on the left hand side you will see "Major shareholders"

You can start with you're bank, or any bank especially the FED banks or the S&P or whoever you want. Then look up who the major shareholders are....lol

Now that you have gotten an idea of which handful of investment firms actually own our whole banking system....look up any of our major corporations and businesses....lol

For those who still cling to theories that have absolutely no relevance...now you know.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You're the one who must stop making things up.  Like your leaps of logic.  The location of land can't be avoided or dodged. A tax on ANYTHING can be.


How?  Can you tow California to Cayman Islands?  LVT CANNOT be avoided.  Land's location is known to the inch and the tax is due.  If you do not pay .....the land, or other property, is taken and sold to pay the debt - like any other debt.

You cannot taken an Athens mansion to an offshore tax haven.  You condone thieves.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Boy was this thread hijacked....lol...just as our economic system was.
> 
> (We need to eliminate or reduce taxes not shift them)


You clearly do n ot understnad geoism to write that. Geoism REDUCES taxes. Personal taxation is reduced to one, but only if you own land.

Geoism shifts tax away from production and onto unearned income and those who use commonly owned resources.  Some Pigovian taxes would be in place. 

You are confused.

----------


## archangel689

> In Communist counties, unemployment is eliminated because their economic systems were more stable. Why?  There was no harmful speculation in *Land* and its *Resouces* that causes booms and busts and world-wide crashes.
> 
> A salient lesson to be learned from that economic system.  We must ensure our free-market economic systems do the same.  It is easy to do.


Sorry, but speculation is not the major contributing factor to booms or busts, speculation is irrelevant in the long run anyway

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Then stop providing stupid examples of successful resource usage taxation. Hong Kong and Singapore to not apply LVT to the places from which their economic strength comes.


They clearly do. What keeps taxes away from production is taxing land.  Taiwan's meteoric rise to a world technological super-power was clearly based on LVT.

It is no coincidence that these places tax land to reduce Income taxes.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Ok, now that we know that corporations own most of our homes, lets see who these corporations are:


Geoism naturally rolls back corporations. It make people free. Their income is 100% theirs.  No one taxes their transactions (taxing trade either using sales tax.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Sorry, but speculation is not the major contributing factor to booms or busts, speculation is irrelevant in the long run anyway


*You are 100% wrong.*  Speculation on *LAND* caused the 1929 and 2008 crashes.

*Look at and understand post 180:*

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4548490

----------


## idiom

> They clearly do. What keeps taxes away from production is taxing land.  Taiwan's meteoric rise to a world technological super-power was clearly based on LVT.
> 
> It is no coincidence that these places tax land to reduce Income taxes.


Taiwan had a lot of unused natural resources that were being land-banked? They implemented LVT and the natural resources were suddenly put to use leading to meteoric economic growth?

Pray tell, what were these previously land-banked economic resources?

You keep providing counter-examples. Nations that use resources and land outside their borders to achieve economic success are not good examples of LVT working.

----------


## Ariondys

there is no fair economic system if few people have most of the total capital.  Human behaviour requires trading.  And the winners of those trades eventually over time, even if it takes 300 years, will end up with most of the capital and the leverage they have will corrupt the trading system.  Perhaps if savings were taxed, this would create a mathematically theoretical maximum saving of capital relative to the earnings and savings-tax-rate.  But then, i'm not sure how it would play out, but Rome had some maximum land holdings rule, people would figure out some way to game the system to get around the rules that were trying to direction human-economic-behaviour.

The best idea is the idea of a jubilee.  Where all debts are forgiven and people are restored to a level playing field, economics wise.  The trading behaviour would be bent by the timing of the jubilees.. but I can imagine it would reduce the extreme avarice that results when people end up with scores of billions of dollars worth of capital.

Seriously, there's no way 1 person is worth that much.  Why?  They havn't earned it.  No one can perform at the worth of 100,000 people.  It's just a mathematical reality of allowing money to be worth more when you lend it or invest it.  That earnings that comes back is off the backs of others who lost the economic race.

----------


## idiom

> Seriously, there's no way 1 person is worth that much.  Why?  They havn't earned it.  No one can perform at the worth of 100,000 people.  It's just a mathematical reality of allowing money to be worth more when you lend it or invest it.  That earnings that comes back is off the backs of others who lost the economic race.


Even if you create a business that employs 100,000 or 200,000 people?

----------


## showpan

> You clearly do n ot understnad geoism to write that. Geoism REDUCES taxes. Personal taxation is reduced to one, but only if you own land.
> 
> Geoism shifts tax away from production and onto unearned income and those who use commonly owned resources.  Some Pigovian taxes would be in place. 
> 
> You are confused.


no, I'm not confused. LVT would increase taxes on the land which would increase taxes on the common people...not those who now hold all the land. (see my post) There are only a handful of landowners right now that own everything and they aren't paying taxes. The people who are renting and borrowed are paying those taxes because it has been added to their payments. If you were to take all the land away and just lease it like Mexico does, then that solves nothing either because they will simply lease all of it to those that come knocking first who would then sublease to you and me. This simply gives the government more room for corruption just as it does in Mexico right now...lol

And speculation is the reason for booms and busts.....you are confused. Speculation is now driving 90% of ALL markets and guess who is doing it....see my post above that you have apparently ignored. Almost every boom and bust in our nations history can be attributed to those "investors" and their fathers before them, and their fathers before them......
Not just in our history either since most of them are European...lol

I don't really like to call them investors....lets call them what they really are...a mafia like cartel.


BTW...you had better use that little search feature of yahoo's now because as soon as enough people become aware, it will certainly disappear since yahoo is owned by them also.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
> 
> 
> The location of land can't be avoided or dodged. A tax on ANYTHING can be.  There are no magical or mystical properties about any tax that makes it avoidance-proof or dodge-proof.  Both history and common sense should tell you that. Just the private property tax exemptions alone on more than a billion dollars worth of land and property in just four counties in North Dakota should prove the point nicely. And guess what - the location of all that land is known to the inch. 
> 
> Enterprise Zones, Renaissance Zones, etc., call them whatever you will, there are countless ways of gaming any tax system to avoid taxes and gain artificial competitive advantages over others (ultimately the "stupid and the poor", as idiom wrote) -- basically anyone not well-healed or politically connected.  That's not an argument against LVT. It's an argument against the ludicrous, specious claim that "LVT cannot be avoided or dodged" given that "the location of the land is known to the inch".  
> 
> Like you said, "Do write stupid comments. If you do not know, ask. It will be explained to you."
> 
> ...


Your absolutely false assumption is that _"the tax is due"_, and simply because the location of the land is known. That assumption, that it's automatically due because the land exists, is your leap of logic.  I cited RIGHT NOW examples (above, the part you snipped) where the location of land is known, and where a tax would ORDINARILY be due, but is not.  And that's just with property taxes, and is just one way that LVT (or any other tax, for that matter) can be both gamed and avoided.  

LVT proponents seek to make the state an active market participant, by granting it a monopoly on land rents, and putting the state in charge of a) land valuation and b) percentage levied. And this power goes to a state that is already very much in charge of c) zoning and use allocation.

Revenue-maximizing tax jurisdictions behave as competitors in the land rent market, and are especially incentivized to attract commerce.   One tool at their disposal is to create "Renaissance" or "Enterprise" Zones.  A fire sale, with LVT exemptions (and even wealth redistribution grants) given out.  "Hey Intel! We will give you five years of zero or reduced LVT if you'll agree to move to PODUNK, PA!"  And then five years turns into forever, as palms are greased and lobbied for exemptions are renegotiated and rolled over periodically.  The exempted entity pays no LVT, but does bring LVT to the table INDIRECTLY, as they have employees who need to live on land, and small vendors who need land to operate (the poor and the stupid).   That gives the firm real leverage, because if the company leaves, lays off, outsources or downsizes in any way, so do sources of LVT revenue, which also dry up in the process. 

Meanwhile, Big Clem, The Podunk Pillar of the Community, along with the help of his lobbyist cronies at the local Chamber, lobbies for and negotiates A Sweet Deal for himself, and also for his land-owning cronies in the legislature.  No reason why Intel should get all the breaks, moms and pops like Clem are just as deserving.  So, quietly and without any fanfare, more exemptions and more grants are doled out -- leaving only the poor and the stupid to foot the actual bill. 

Don't be naive. Don't be so stupid as to think that because land can't be hidden a tax on it can't be avoided. All this happens NOW. TODAY.  North Dakota is the tip of that iceberg, it happens with every tax, all over the country.  Nothing special about LVT in that regard.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Taiwan had a lot of unused natural resources that were being land-banked? They implemented LVT and the natural resources were suddenly put to use leading to meteoric economic growth?


You sort of got it there.  Taiwan's land was owned by a handful of people. LVT make it feasible for the landowners to sell their land.  The reduced taxes on production catapulted Taiwan, an insignificant country full of paddy fields and an uneducated population, to a technological world super power.  

It is best that you stop making things up and find out.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Your absolutely false assumption is that _"the tax is due"_, and simply because the location of the land is known. That assumption, that it's automatically due because the land exists, is your leap of logic.


You have the logic of a fea. Facts:

*The location of land is known the inch.**Land CANNOT be taken to an off-shore tax haven**LVT payment CANNOT be "avoided".**LVT is VERY cheap to collect*

----------


## EcoWarrier

> LVT proponents seek to make the state an active market participant, by granting it a monopoly on land rents, and putting the state in charge of a) land valuation and b) percentage levied. And this power goes to a state that is already very much in charge of c) zoning and use allocation.


The state does not set the free-market.  Land values are set by the free-market. The state will set the rate at which the "unearned income" is reclaimed. I prefer 100% rental value, as people should work for their income and not rely on being a parasite appropriating commonwealth.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> no, I'm not confused. LVT would increase taxes on the land which would increase taxes on the common people...not those who now hold all the land. (see my post) There are only a handful of landowners right now that own everything and they aren't paying taxes.


You need to find out more.  Pay attention!  Income, property (taxes on capital, the bricks) & sales taxes would be eliminated or vastly reduced. All studies indicate the average person will pay at least 25-30% less in total taxes. LVT reclaims commonly created wealth and leaves private wealth private.

LVT encourages enterprise and is based on an unrigged free-market.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> there is no fair economic system if few people have most of the total capital.


...and most of the land. The current system is so unfair and skewed it periodically crashes.  Geoism is 100% fair. It auto regulates the economy - no catastrophic boom-busts.  It promotes trade and enterprise as in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan. It discourages parasitical activities.

Wiping out debts was what the ancients did. But when the economy is in the hands of private corporations who want their money come-what-may, the system falls over badly when busts occur. That is why central banks like the Federal Reserve (although public owned not private), Bank of England, etc are essential. They service the deficit issue money, etc.  Only the USA, UK, Canada and China have central banks - hence why these countries have not suffered as much as Continental Europe. Central banks can wipe out debts - a great advantage. Take note. Money is man made not finite in supply and coming from Sinai.

But Geoism would prevent boom-bust so not much of problem in wiping out debts..

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Even if you create a business that employs 100,000 or 200,000 people?


It is best that those 200,000 people are employed by 5,000 companies and many self-emploed.  Geoism encourages small businesses.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Henry George made the mistake of terming LVT the ‘Single Tax’, when it is not a tax at all. This was a major millstone around LVT's neck, despite having amazing popular appeal 100 years ago.  His solution, although based on others before him, and previous practical experience, is superbly elegant. 

Geoism, the progression from Henry George, is clearly the answer for the needs of a proper modern state, not the sick, dysfunctional vote-obsessed overbloated state/corporations we now have. Geoism means a state and its people would have to live within its means.

The many side-efficiencies of LVT, which is also more aptly termed Site Reclaim Revenue is reducing welfare dependancy, crime, etc, and if desired a full National Health System (NHS). The modern academic studies of Dwyer in Australia and Gaffney in the USA show an embarrassment of riches available from rental on land & its resources. 

It is essential that Henry George's theories should be at the core as his insight is inspired. Geoism reduces the risk of political and corporation abuse.

----------


## idiom

> You sort of got it there.  Taiwan's land was owned by a handful of people. LVT make it feasible for the landowners to sell their land.  The reduced taxes on production catapulted Taiwan, an insignificant country full of paddy fields and an uneducated population, to a technological world super power.  
> 
> It is best that you stop making things up and find out.


Okay, unbridled fantasy there.

1. LVT was never more than 1% in Taiwan, it is widely considered that < 3% is insufficient to prevent speculation. Ergo LVT was insufficient to have any bearing on a fifty year boom.

*2. "Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft. " - Jeffery J. Smith
President, Geonomy Society*

3. At the end of World War II Taiwan had a massive influx of chinese intelligensia fleeing Mao, swelling the population by 25%, all wealthy well educated capitalists. The KMT brought with them Chinas _ENTIRE GOLD RESERVE_.

4. Chiang Kai-shek smashed the local landlords, something he had failed to do in China, and turned the land over to the serfs creating millions of new capitalist land owners overnight. He did this primarily to secure the loyalty of his newly invaded populace.

5. Taiwan was the recipient of vast amounts of foreign aid and threw in heavily with ultra-capitalism in order to fend off China. They spent nearly 50% of government revenue on defence for the first ten years, spiking industry.

6. The USSR trained Kai-shek implemented a number of 4 year plans to boost productivity.

7. Agriculture as a percentage of the economy dropped from 40% in 1952 to 3% in 1991. Services made up 60% of the economy by 1991. Industrial products made from imported raw materials make up 95% of all exports. Imported raw materials are not subject to LVT.

8. In 1963 with a serious trade deficit and falling real GNP Taiwan pegged their currency to the US Dollar while simultaneous making heavy government investments in semi-conductor research. This lead to massive outsourcing of production from the US to Taiwan largely in part due to low wages and regulation.

9. Slightly prior to a major regional recession in the late 70's, the government began investments in nuclear power, ship building steel mills and petro-chemical plants.

10. "By some estimates 50 per cent of the land in Taiwan was still controlled by indigenous groups at the time of Taiwan's transfer to Japan by treaty in 1895, especially in the mountainous core of the island.... 

The Japanese occupation which lasted in Taiwan until the end of 1945 saw a brutal attempt to crush the resistance of those Aborigines not fully under the control of authorities. For example, a campaign against the Taroko (also known as Truku) people by Japanese armed and policy forces saw perhaps some 10,000 killed. The Japanese sought to exploit the island's resources in a systematic way, thus pursuing for this purpose a policy of ‘pacifying' the Aborigines and nationalising indigenous land. From 1930 authorities started to embark in policies aimed at turning the Aborigines into Japanese:  whole communities were forcibly moved to low-lying areas near Japanese military and police outposts, the hunting down and killing of rebels, and enforcing the use of Japanese language and names...  

*The policies of the Kuomintang after 1945* (Read "LVT") were in many ways similar and just as devastating as those of the Japanese. _ All land in the mountain areas was nationalised, for example, with Aborigines retaining only limited use rights;_ just as the Japanese had done, the Kuomintang authorities adopted policies designed to assimilate the indigenous populations, prohibiting the teaching of their languages and prescribing not only the use of Mandarin, but also the adoption of Chinese names...

*Legislation adopted in 1968, ostensibly to protect Aboriginal lands, in reality had the almost contrary effect: unless land was cultivated for 10 years, it became state property.* This meant that Aborigines had to abandon their traditional hunting, gathering, and slash-and-burn agricultural activities, thus signaling a near deathblow to many aspects of their cultures. The legislation also contained a number of ways for government and Han Chinese individuals and corporations to ‘lease' land for commercial and other uses, and these often resulted in further disenfranchising indigenous peoples from any real control over their remaining land."

11. "Taiwan may have experienced an economic miracle, but we have also seen tragedies brought on by natural disasters. Having just passed the ninth anniversary of the 921 Earthquake in 1999; we are still destroying the land that we live and rely on....

Another case of inappropriate development arises from national land planning and complementary local development measures. A prime example of questionable development is the dozens of hotels that have been built alongside riverbeds, often blocking large parts of the river. Flooding triggered by the recent typhoon led to the collapse of several buildings illegally erected in rivers, revealing developers’ greed and an almost total disregard for the government...

Taiwan’s plan for the next 100 years should focus on sustainable development. Using a comprehensive approach, the government should look at the environmental protection issues important to each city and county and the strong points of each of these places. It should then manage demand, rather than allowing unbridled development aimed at “increasing domestic demand.” This is the only way to solve the current crisis." - Taipei Times.

The environment in Taiwan is being devastated and eroded, leading to engineering calamities and natural disasters that kill hundreds.

12. It is becoming clear that Taiwans "miracle" was in fact an enormous cost-shift mirage and will be unsustainable with continued infusions of debt.



Claiming that LVT had anything to do with growth in Taiwan is _fraudulent_. Secondly pointing to Taiwan as sustainable either environmentally or economically is _mentally deficient_.

Please provide more examples of the LVT miracle cure, maybe with some actual facts. Also, maybe select some examples where the indigenous peoples were not forcibly evicted from the ancestral lands and forcibly re-educated. Maybe, also an example that doesn't include military dictators getting insanely wealthy and powerful.

----------


## idiom

> It is best that those 200,000 people are employed by 5,000 companies and many self-emploed.  Geoism encourages small businesses.


This misses the point entirely. The problem is you do not understand how huge the global economy is or how technology creates leverage. Also modern billionaires are not particularly rich by historical standards.

The original contention was that an individual cannot create 100,000 times more wealth than another individual without immoral force.

There are six billion people in the world. Imagine you write a book. 100 million people read your book. They each pay you $10 for the satisfaction you provide. You have generated a Billion Dollars in revenue with hoard thousands of acres of land or extracting resources from mountains. Many of the very richest people in the world including the three richest woman got their wealth in precisely this way. How is this immoral?

Your examples of 'Geoism' in action tend to be examples of nations ruled by massive free-running corrupt cartels.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> This misses the point entirely. The problem is you do not understand how huge the global economy is or how technology creates leverage.


I fully understand it, that is clear.  Technological advances create economic growth. This is ceated by the progressive and bright.  Yet a landowning parasistes will up the rent as the economy rises, which they had NO part in, and take the Lion's share. 




> There are six billion people in the world. Imagine you write a book. 100 million people read your book. They each pay you $10 for the satisfaction you provide. You have generated a Billion Dollars in revenue with hoard thousands of acres of land or extracting resources from mountains. Many of the very richest people in the world including the three richest woman got their wealth in precisely this way. How is this immoral?


I never said being a successful writer is immoral.




> Your examples of 'Geoism' in action tend to be examples of nations ruled by massive free-running corrupt cartels.


Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan are the frreest economic trading cetres of the world. Where the land is owned by a few and they cream off in rents for doing nothing (called unearned income), the countries underperform.

----------


## Origanalist

> EcoWarrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Member 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Join Date: May 2012Location: The EarthPosts: 229


Only 229? 

Seems like a lot more.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
> 
> 
> Your absolutely false assumption is that "the tax is due", and simply because the location of the land is known. That assumption, that it's automatically due because the land exists, is your leap of logic.
> 
> 
> You have the logic of a fea. Facts:
> 
> *The location of land is known the inch.**Land CANNOT be taken to an off-shore tax haven**LVT payment CANNOT be "avoided".* _<--- reassert ad nauseam the same false non-sequitur, this time in bold_ *LVT is VERY cheap to collect* _<--- add an irrelevant point in an attempt to cement the false statement that went before_


Your number 3 is a non-sequitur (_"it does not follow"_), as in, "It does not follow that LVT cannot be avoided simply because the location of land is known and fixed," which was proved conclusively with real world examples.  If a tax is avoided (exempted), as can be the case with _any tax, including LVT_, then the payment of that tax is also avoided.  

Following is an excerpt from a Geoist article pushing LVT - SOURCE




> While LVT is not a silver bullet it does offer a workable approach to creating a fair, effective and sustainable source of revenue to realize New Londoners' burgeoning visions for a vibrant, re-vitalized city. With an effective LVT program in place, *existing tools such as enterprise zones, abatements, grants and loans (when available) can be employed strategically to supplement an LVT program.*


See that?  (not you, I know you won't see it; you'll squint your eyes shut and blindly reassert the same nonsense, but others will see it)

enterprise zones (LVT reductions and exemptions)abatements (temporary elimination of LVT)grants and loans (redistribution of LVT funds)

The above are just a few of the "tools" for LVT avoidance on land that is both fixed in location and "known to the inch".  But never let contradictory facts get in the way of a dogmatic assumption.

----------


## idiom

> Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan are the frreest economic trading cetres of the world. Where the land is owned by a few and they cream off in rents for doing nothing (called unearned income), the countries underperform.


So you just ignored the entire post about Taiwan? Including this part?

2. "Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft. " - Jeffery J. Smith
President, Geonomy Society

Anybody who is 'creaming money off the top' is usually losing money. Renting land out is actually high risk and hard work. Its a reasonable track to wealth but it just as quickly leads to ruin. Those banks you keep citing that 'own all the land' should all have evaporated and cost their owners everything returning the land to the poor at firesale prices, except the government bailed them out. Without the government intervening 'on behalf of the community' a lot of the large landowners wouldn't exist. The speculation is good for breaking greedy landlords. Geoism just protects them as is seen in Taiwan.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> drivel & tripe


You have the logic of a fea. Facts:
The location of land is known to the inch.Land CANNOT be taken to an off-shore tax haven*LVT payment CANNOT be "avoided"*.LVT is VERY cheap to collect 

Understand the above. At least try.  Get the years of political indoctrination out of your head.  You have everything to gain.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You have the logic of a fea. Facts:
> The location of land is known to the inch.Land CANNOT be taken to an off-shore tax haven*LVT payment CANNOT be "avoided"*.LVT is VERY cheap to collect 
> 
> Understand the above. At least try.  Get the years of political indoctrination out of your head.  You have everything to gain.


Oh, well crap, now that you put it in bold and asserted it strenuously. That's better than dib-hocs-dice, tick a locket, no take-backs.  That's level 192 wizardry, no argument can withstand that.  Why didn't you just say it could be forcefully asserted AND bolded all by itself? That could have saved us so much time!

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So you just ignored the entire post about Taiwan?


Did I?  Find out.  You even admitted you could not understnad LVT - which is simple. TRY!

Look at British right-wing Conservative Tory Mark Wadsworth's blog he puts up the arguments against LVT then slams them down he is in the hundreds now:

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/...t-not-225.html

----------


## EcoWarrier

*WHERE THE PROPERTY TAX SHIFT HAS WORKED: 26 CASE SUMMARIES* 

by Jeffery J. Smith 

Usually, a "reform" of taxes fails to live up to its advance billing. Yet there is one reform, albeit little known, that has an unbroken record of customer satisfaction. For whatever accidents of history, some peoples have tried it; and wherever tried, to the degree tried, it has worked. What is this tax reform that has remained a secret to most taxpayers? It is to reduce levies on wages and enterprise while collecting natural Rent.

*1, France, 1790s*. Back when the noble savage and natural law and natural rights were all the rage, the in philosophy was physiocracy, the idea that economies could run best by themselves, sans state interference, and government should sustain itself off the Rent people pay for nature. In 1798, the nouveau Republic of France paid for 80% of its budget out of collected land Rent. Might this tapping into the flow of Rent, as much as any other revolutionary reform, have motivated Europe's monarchs, whose fortunes were little more than concentrations of land Rent, to attack France en masse? If the monarchies had left France in peace, might the Revolution have been less bloody? In 1807 Napoleon's government crafted a tax on the increase in land value to be levied when parcels were sold but never applied the law (probably due to war, also why England never applied its land tax law a century later). By 1830, Rent as revenue was down to 25%. In 1980, France still collected enough Rent to fund 13% of its budget, more than do many other far less successful nations. (Vincent Renaud in Lincoln Institute monograph #82-3; Land taxation and land use; Laconte, editor)

*2, Denmark, 1840s.* One crown prince was so convinced of the rightness of physiocracy that he impatiently overthrew his uncle, the king, in 1784. The new King Frederick then ended serfdom, proclaimed tenants' rights, and helped peasants become owners. He also proposed reforming the land tax so that its amount was geared to site value, not size (as was traditional thru-out Europe). His reform finally became law in 1844, giving Denmark the widest distribution of titles to land in Europe, a distinction the nation has held since. (Michael Silagi, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 1994 Oct)

After the physiocrats, the best-known proponent of this tax and property reform was the American Henry George (1839-1897), author of the classic Progress and Poverty (1879). An inspiring speaker, George toured most of the US and British Empire, planting the seed of reform. He left a legacy we can measure today.

*3, California, 1890s.* Back then, many farmers and miners went without water because cattlemen like Henry Miller owned 1,000,000 acres of land. Miller could drive his herds from Mexico to Oregon and spend every night on his own land. In 1886 Miller won full rights to the water of the Kern River.

Some people concerned with justice figured the cattlemen had gone far enough. The state government passed the 1887 Wright Act which allowed communities to create by popular vote irrigation districts to build dams and canals and pay for them by taxing the resultant rise in land value. Once irrigated, land was too valuable to use for grazing, and the tax made it too costly for hoarding. So cattlemen sold off fields to farmers and at prices the farmers could afford.

In ten years, the Central Valley was transformed into over 7,000 independent farms. Over the next few decades, those tree-less, semi-arid plains became the "bread basket of America", one of the most productive areas on the planet. (magazine of the Historical Society of California)

*4, Kiaochow, China 1900s*. The German Imperial Commissioner for Kiaochow (by the Yellow Sea, also Chiaochou and now Jiaoxian) was Ludwig Wilhelm Schrameier, also a member of the German Land Reformers. Having read the works of Henry George, at the founding of the colony (about 200 square miles in Shangdong, formerly Shantung) in 1898, Schrameier established a land-value tax. At 6%, this levy prevented land speculation, collected about half the land Rent, and funded government services until the Germans lost their colony at the outbreak of World War I. Sun Yat-sen (below #10) was impressed by the results in Kiaochow whose main city, Qingdao (also Tsingtao) had modernized. (Adapted from www.progress.org by Fred Foldvary, after Michael Silagi in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1984 April)

*5, Australia, 1900s*. While some towns Down Under were born taxing land (late 1800s), some states adopted the idea in the wee 1900s (New South Wales in 1905), and the federacy did so in 1910. In 1920 the continent's capitol (designed by a Georgist) was established on public land. Canberra owns and lets its land to residents and businesses. The biggest city, Sydney, levies only one tax - on land. Neither Sydney's tax nor Canberra's lease recovers all the land's Rent, so these cities also get revenue from the federal government. But the poorer sections of both cities bear no resemblance to the degrading slums of nearly all American cities.

Around Melbourne, some towns tax land alone. Dr. Ken Lusht, visiting from Penn State, found they have 50% more built value per acre than those that tax both land and buildings. Between 1974 and 1984 (last year the government released these statistics), coinciding with some recession years, the number of businesses in the towns taxing property decreased by 20% while in the towns taxing only land it increased by more than 10%. (Phil Anderson, Economic Indicator Services, Melbourne, Australia)

*6, New Zealand, 1910s*. Many settlements in "Kiwi Country" began with taxing land, peaking at 80%. Even the nation levied land. Employment averaged 99% from 1966 until 1975. When the oil shock hit, making their export goods too expensive since they had to be shipped so far by oil-burning freighters, employment dropped to a true (not fudged) 94%. Then the federal government repealed the national land tax, leaving Rent to localities, who did not always pick it up. Now about 2/3 of the jurisdictions tax land, not buildings. (Incentive Taxation)

*7, Western Canada, 1910s*. As they came into being, many towns of the prairie provinces decided to go with the collection of site Rent exclusively. Generally they outgrew and out-served their neighboring towns. Besides the surface, British Columbia recognized living nature as a legitimate source of public revenue, too. Royalty from forests funds much of BC's budget. (ex-BC Assessor Ted Gwartney, Incentive Taxation, '87 March)

*8, England, 1910s*. Impressed by George's argument but skeptical of its political chances, Ebenezer Howard began the Garden Cities. These exist on land owned by a corporation that consists of residents and investors. Letchworth, the oldest of these model towns, serves residents grandly from vaultfuls of collected land Rent. The experiment spread as far as Russia. For a while, Great Britain did pass land value taxation but could not implement it until reassessing all the land, and due to manpower constraints could not do that until World War I was over. By then, the political winds had shifted and the reform was never adopted. Between the world wars in Vienna and Budapest, Georgists also had success briefly, but an alliance of left and right quickly repealed the reform. (Michael Silagi, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 1994 Oct) Elsewhere, Alexander Kerensky proposed taxing land in Russia and Francisco I. Madero did so in Mexico. Kerensky was thwarted by revolution, Madero by assassination. (Steve Cord, Henry George Fdn). One country did buck the trend that Howard hoped to circumvent. In Denmark in the wee 1900s, the Liberals replaced the land value tax with a conventional property tax plus an income tax. In the 1920s, Georgists reformed the property tax so that it fell more heavily on land, lighter on buildings.

*9, New York City, 1920s*. After World War I, many New Yorkers suffered from lack of housing. To solve the problem, Governor Al Smith borrowed a page from Henry George (who ran for mayor of New York City in 1886, finishing second ahead of Teddy Roosevelt, and again in 1897, dying four days before the election). Smith persuaded the New York legislature to pass a law allowing New York City for the next ten years to tax land but not the buildings on it.

New construction more than tripled while in other big cities it barely doubled. Not only was there more housing, and thus lower cost apartments, there were more jobs and higher wages for construction workers, and more business for merchants who sold goods to the employed workers.

Economic good times in New York came to an end, though, when owners in 1928 began to anticipate the expiration of the tax-shift law. ("How New York Solved Its Housing Crisis",Charles Johnson Post, 1931?, Schalkenbach Fdn, Mason Gaffney, 2001) Some say that the drastic decline in building starts, not the stock market crash of 1929, was the real trigger of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Other geonomists say it was the Dust Bowl, the collapse of the agrarian sector of the economy. Watching land prices inflate in the 80's, followed by farm takeovers and slowed housing starts, land-focused econometricians predicted land prices to hit bottom in about 1990, then next around 2008.

*10, South America, 1930s*. Some Hispanic republics continued the physiocratic tradition. In the 1840s, Argentina had a president who tried to capture ground rent for social betterment - until the army put an end to his flirtation with justice. In the 1920s, both Colombia and Uruguay passed laws letting commissions build new roads using funds collected from roadside landowners. After a few decades of success, this mechanism declined. Confusion arose when one property was near more than one road. And as the roads pushed up land values, land assessments lagged behind. With corruption and inflation, poor people could not afford to pay even the assessments lagging behind. Still, as late as the 90s, Bogota used resultant rent to pay for 80% of a new road. For the general fund, Columbia has a city land tax at 1% and a national one at 2%, and a land gains tax up to 50%, yet land is registered at 20% of its value. (Ortiz, Alexandra. Economic analysis of a land value capture system used to finance road infrastructure: the case of Bogota, Colombia; 1996, and Prest, A. P. Transport Economics in Developing Countries; Praeger, 1969)

*11, Taiwan, 1940s. Old Formosa was mired in poverty and fast-breeding. Hunger afflicted the majority of people who were landless peasants. Less than 20 families monopolized the entire island.* Then the Nationalist Army, led by Chiang Kai-shek, retreated to Taiwan. General Chiang figured he lost mainland China in part by not reforming land-holding. Chiang did not want to risk losing his last refuge - east of that isle lay nothing but open ocean.

A follower of Sun Yat-sen, the father of modern China and an adherent of Henry George, Chiang knew of the Single Tax. Borrowing a page from George via Sun, the new Nationalist Government of Taiwan instituted its "land to the tiller program" which taxed farm land according to its value. Soon the large plantation owners found themselves paying out about as much in taxes as they were getting back as Rent. Being a middle-man was no longer worth the bother, so they sold off their excess to farmers at prices the peasants could afford.

Working their own land with newly marketed fertilizers, new owners worked harder. They produced more, and after years of paying taxes to cover the onerous public debt, at last kept more and lived better. From 1950 to 1970 population growth dropped 40%, and hunger was ended. *Taiwan began to set world records with growth rates of 10% per annum in their GDP and 20% in their industry. (Fred Harrison, Power in the Land)*
12, Third World, 1950s. While British territories, Jamaica (1957-1962) and East African nations taxed land and exempted all improvements. However, as land value grew, the governments did not keep assessments in pace. Today, there's little to show for such meager taxes on land. (Dr. Mason Gaffney, UC-Riverside)

*13, Denmark, 1950s*. The Danes built on their land tax heritage. In 1957, the tiny Georgist Justice Party won a few seats and a role in the ruling coalition. Anticipating a higher rate on land, investors switched from real estate to real enterprise. One year later, inflation had gone from 5% to under 1%; bank interest dropped from 6.25% to 5%. By 1960, 100,000 unemployed in a country of just five million had found jobs.

Tho' many people were better off, next election landowners spent enough money to convince people otherwise. The Justice Party lost its seats, the land rate lost its boost, and investors again became land speculators. Quickly inflation climbed back up to 5% and by 1964 reached 8%. From 1960 to 1981, land prices sky-rocketed, increasing 19-fold while prices of goods and services went up merely fourfold. (Knud Tholstrup, MP, A Third Way)

*14, Denmark, 1960s*. In 1968, the Danish government decided to redefine taxable income. To make this bureaucratic change, they froze everyone's maximal tax liability for one year. Earners realized that all income above the previous year's amount would not be taxed. Their response, from 1968 to 1969, was to double the increase in production (4% to 8%), halve the inflation rate (8% to 3.5%), quadruple investment increases (5% to 20.5%), raise savings by a quarter (from 2.9 million kroner to 3.8), and employ nearly all workers. (Knud Tholstrup, MP, A Third Way)

*15, Hawai'i, 1960s*. To build up their tourist economy, the newest state in 1963 reformed their conventional property tax. In place of one rate on both land and buildings, they began to lower the rate on structures while leaving a high rate on sites (with many technical complexities yet no surcharges to protect open space). Within a few years, this property tax shift led to 30 large resort hotels in Honolulu's Waikiki Beach. Built value was up to 25% more than it would have been, concluded Richard Pollack and Donald C. Shoup in Land Economics 53, no 1 (1977), p 67-77. Opponents of Rent-sharing dragged out implementation for years, and as growth drove up site values, and no collected Rent was returned as a dividend or voucher, residents and speculators rebelled. In 1977, the legislature knuckled under and repealed this graded property tax, phasing out in two years what had taken 14 to phase in.

*16, San Diego City, 1960s.* When under Spanish, then Mexican control, much good land in California was "pueblo" (public). Very little of that remains today. Some of it, tho', is quite valuable. One lucrative pueblo land is the Port District of San Diego, formed in the '60s by the various towns sitting on San Diego Bay. The Port Authority collects hundreds of millions of dollars of Rent each year and is the only local government agency with a positive cash flow (SDPD Annual Report). Where does that cash flow? Not into the bank accounts of its owners - the "pueblo". The Rent collected from the Yacht Club, a social club for millionaires, is only $1.00 per annum. (The San Diego Union-Tribune)

*17, Kansas City (Missouri), 1970s*. KC levied one site value tax for parks and parkways (pleasant streets that wend through parks in ravines) built in the 1930s. Another was for trafficways, multilane throughways that move traffic with synchronized traffic lights built in the 1940s or 1950s. To fund boulevards (thru streets with synchronized lights that preceded the trafficways), KC levied a "front-foot" tax rate on each lot's front footage on the boulevard. This is close to a land value basis because all the boulevards are straight and in a grid pattern. When the city charter was revised in the 1950s, the site-value tax was included.

Under the leadership of Mayor Bartels, the city used straw parties in the 1950s to secretly buy up half of Platte County (then rural farmland) for an airport. The city leased sites around its new airport opened in 1972 at full market value for hotels, warehouses, an aircraft overhaul base, postal distribution center, etc - even to farmers. Outside airport land, investors bought land and built hotels. When the 1970s recession hit, all the hotels buying land went broke while the hotels renting city land survived. Able to learn, some big hotel chains survived the crash at the end of the 80s by separating the hotel real estate into REITs apart from corporate hotel operators.

In the 1980s, voters approved by referendum doubling the land tax rates. Speculators challenged the land taxes as against the state requirement for all real estate taxes to be levied on the value of land and buildings. The Missouri court (most of KC is not in Kansas but in Missouri) ruled that the land taxes were "special assessments" and not subject to the state requirements for taxes.

*18, Vermont, 1970s*. To thwart speculators, Vermont taxes land sales when the turnaround is under six years. Now more people, including lower income people, are buying land for farming. Conversely, fewer people, especially out-of-state investors, are buying land for speculation or sprawl-type development. (R. Lisle Baker, Suffolk U Law Schl, Boston, MA)

*19, Arabia, 1970s.* Thanks to the oil under desert sands, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait collect enough oil royalty that they can afford to build a modern, large-scale infrastructure without taxing their citizens. Kuwait even paid their people Heritage Shares. Formerly nomadic tribesmen moved to cities where they live more sophisticated lives. Now Kuwait pays citizens (not guest workers, about 2/3 the population) bonuses for marriage and monthly stipends for children and provides free schooling and doctoring ChrSciMnr, 2001 Apr 18). Another Muslim petrol-nation, tho' beyond the Persian Gulf, is Bahrain; like the others, it is taxless and busily building.

*20, North America, 1980s*. Thanks to the oil under Arctic-windswept plains, the province of Alberta, Canada, and the state of Alaska, America, have lower taxes. Alberta has no sales tax, pays part of its citizens federal income tax, part of their utility bills, a small, unvarying energy refund, and provides more free social services, such as excellent health care and university education. (Alberta Heritage Fund Annual Report) In Canada, all minerals and forests belong to the people. In America, we don't enjoy that justice. But with 12.5% of the market value of Prudhoe Bay oil, Alaska pays 80% of its state budget. It also pays a share to its citizens, about $1500 per annum (varying with the price of oil and the return on their investments).

While mineral land, such as oil fields, is an obvious source of plentiful public revenue, old-fashioned surface values also abound.

*21, Georgist Colonies, 1980s*. Followers of Henry George after his passing (1897) founded three country towns: Free Acres (New Jersey), Arden (Delaware), and Fairhope (Alabama). As trusts they leased land, collecting Rent for public goods. Compared to other towns in their counties, they are cleaner, enjoy more services at lower costs (parks, libraries, and schools) and make decisions in town hall meetings. Fairhope, whose Quakers resettled in Monte Verde, Costa Rica to avoid the draft and taxes of the Korean War, was one of only four towns on the Gulf of Mexico recommended in the 80s for retirement by Consumers' Guide.

*22, The "Four Tigers", 1980s*. Hong Kong, often voted the world's best city for business, exists on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). Hong Kong also uses land rent to fund their new metro. Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, now taxes land at 16%. Taiwan (above) also taxes land. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, an admirer of Henry George, forced the Japanese provisional government to write land reform into their new democratic constitution that limited Rent paid by tenants to owners. South Korea adopted a similar Rent reform.

A World Bank study credited land reform with creating the basis for their economic miracles. To develop successfully, economies must build on a healthy base of secure farmers who can afford to consume manufactured goods. Such markets can attract investment and modernize without too much outside aid (altho' Taiwan did receive a billion dollars from the US, mostly military aid, spread out over eight years). Soon they become independent industrial powers and trading partners with other developed nations.

Today, to try to control their skyrocketing location values, both Japan and Korea have tried to tax land, tho' still minuscully. In many of the United States, the land tax is unconstitutional. When the Single Tax movement was at its peak and a threat to absentee landlords, they lobbied legislators to require the taxing of location and improvement together. Many states, such as California, succumbed to the pressure. In other states, such as New York, localities may levy separate rates only with permission from the legislature.

*23, Pennsylvania, 1980s.* Penn's Woods is the only state granting cities outright the option to levy different rates. The state went from two cities in 1975 (Pittsburgh and Scranton), to 16 in 1996 who practiced this reform. All these cities, sited in the midst of impoverished Appalachia, are developing 16% more per year than their neighbors (Dr. Nic Tideman, VPI, Blacksburg, VA), and growing denser, meaning they can provide public services like mass transit at lower cost.

Pittsburgh renewed its urban core without substantial federal subsidy and created an urban park out of its most prime location, the Golden Triangle, without an agonizing citizens effort to overcome developer resistance. Housing costs and crime rate, like a small town's, are far below the national average. Rand-McNally named the Steel City "America's Most Livable City" twice, in 1985 and 1986.

*24, Mexicali, BC, Mexico, 1990s*. Seeking funds for new and better infrastructure, the mayor of Mexicali, Baja California, Milton Castellanos Gout, on the advice of a graduate from the U of California - Berkeley (Sergio Flores Pena), jettisoned the entire conventional property tax and replaced it with a land tax. For a few years, bureaucrats opposed updating the cadastre, yet subsequent civic administrations continued to modernize official land values. Revenue went from under three million pesos in 1988 from the property tax to over 63 million in 1998 from the land tax. This rapid rise was accompanied by no complaints from landowners. It must be better to own serviced land that is taxed than unserved land that is tax-free. In 1995, Mexicali drew 15.3% of its revenue from its land tax while others cities in BC drew only 8.4% from their property tax, and other cities around the country averaged only 10.3%. Hence the Mexicali land tax has been adopted by other cities in BC and in the neighboring state of BC Sur. (Lincoln Inst's Land Lines, 1999 Sep)

*25, Ethiopia, 1990s*. Around the outskirts of the capital, Addis Ababa, shanty towns sprung up on land that had been used to feed the city, pushing out farmers on to land that had lain fallow for centuries. The longer trek to central markets raised the price of food there. So the Regional Government, against the advice of the IMF, adopted a tax on land values and parcel size. The tax on structures inside city limits was drastically reduced. The Economics Section of the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington, DC reports greater occupancy and refurbishing of older structures in the city. (Henry George Fdn, Columbia, MD)

*26, Estonia, 1990s*. After the break up of the Soviet Union, each newly separate republic had to find its own way of raising revenue. Estonia, across the gulf from Finland, found the tax for farmland. Because neither land nor its value can be hidden, it was the most feasible way for the new government to raise funds. Collecting from farmowners was vastly more successful than trying to collect from others, succeeding over 95% of the time. The low rate of 2%, which even governmental owners of public land had to pay, was still enough to spur efficient use of land. (The Economist, 1998 Feb 28)

*These 26 case summaries of real-world successes suggest that the number should grow. Society could secure everyone's earning while sharing Earth's worth. Which society will be next to prove the merit of geonomics?*

Copyright 1990, 1999-2001 by Jeffery J. Smith. All rights reserved.

----------


## Tudo

I lived full time in a communist country for several years and never heard of this.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I lived full time in a communist country for several years and never heard of this.


What haven't you heard of?

----------


## idiom

> Did I?  Find out.  You even admitted you could not understnad LVT - which is simple. TRY!
> 
> Look at British right-wing Conservative Tory Mark Wadsworth's blog he puts up the arguments against LVT then slams them down he is in the hundreds now:
> 
> http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/...t-not-225.html


Yeah, you haven't replied to it at all. In fact once you do I will then happily pull apart your 26 case studies.

Although those case studies are by Jeffrey Smith, whose own writing provides pretty solid rebuttal of his own thesis.

Unless, perhaps, you think Massive environmental damage, seizure of tribal lands and enabling the most corrupt government on the planet are *good* outcomes of LVT?

I really can't wait for the next 25 summaries. I man most of them voluntarily abandoned their strategies... and the others are paradises like Ethiopia

The part of LVT I can't understand is why it still has any proponents at all.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The part of LVT I can't understand is why it still has any proponents at all.


That's because you don't know any economics.  Once you know some economics (viewed just so), it's like, ::::  lightbulb! :::: , then you're like, "Whoahhhh!", and EcoWarrier will be like, "See?", and you'll be like, "No friggin' way, get out!", after which you will don LVT tights, a flowing cape, with a Big G on your chest, as you wonder how people can be so stupid as to refuse to see how simple and perfect it is for truth, justice and the LVT way.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

The LVT is a bad idea. Who will enforce such a tax? Obviously some government bureaucracy that will corrupt it to the point where they take property from widows and the disabled. Imagine, seriously imagine, being a true land owner and not having to pay anything to anyone. You would be a king, within the bounds of natural law, and you would have the ultimate freedom to live your life and provide for your family. You would have your own realm, you could make your own flag, have your own family customs and traditions, and really live the way you want, such a novel concept in a "free country". If you wanted to, you could work the land and live modestly, in the spirit of Henry David Thoreau. If you had that type of freedom through land ownership, land would increase in value overnight and people would tend to their land the way they tend to their children. They would have a deep connection to it. Land owners would ensure that their land stays enriched, arable, and beautiful for their posterity and we would move closer to a truly sustainable world. The poor of the world, the renters, would also have inexpensive places to live. Homelessness would evaporate and the world would be a better place. Taxation is theft. The only tax I could see tolerating in a free country is a uniform tariff of under 10%. At least until we transition to a completely voluntary society. I firmly believe that humanity will get there, unless we light the nukes and end the show early.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The part of LVT I can't understand is why it still has any proponents at all.


You freely admitted you never understood LVT. It is best to understand it rather than castigate something you know nothing of, as it makes you look a fool.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That's because you don't know any economics.  Once you know some economics (viewed just so), it's like, ::::  lightbulb! :::: , then you're like, "Whoahhhh!", and EcoWarrier will be like, "See?", and you'll be like, "No friggin' way, get out!", after which you will don LVT tights, a flowing cape, with a Big G on your chest, as you wonder how people can be so stupid as to refuse to see how simple and perfect it is for truth, justice and the LVT way.


That is amazing. I thought you were not capable of learning.  Keep it up.  ten out of ten.

----------


## Origanalist

> That's because you don't know any economics.  Once you know some economics (viewed just so), it's like, ::::  lightbulb! :::: , then you're like, "Whoahhhh!", and EcoWarrier will be like, "See?", and you'll be like, "No friggin' way, get out!", after which you will don LVT tights, a flowing cape, with a Big G on your chest, as you wonder how people can be so stupid as to refuse to see how simple and perfect it is for truth, justice and the LVT way.


Dude, that is like soooo right on!!! I frigging *love* my LVT tights!

----------


## EcoWarrier

For those confused, and there are many, read the first few pages of this thread. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...urce=hovercard

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The LVT is a bad idea. Who will enforce such a tax? Obviously some government bureaucracy that will corrupt it to the point where they take property from widows and the disabled.


Oh No!!! He is dragged out of the cupboard the old widow Bogey, as Winston Churchill called it.    How funny!  Scraping the barrel.




> Imagine, seriously imagine, being a true land owner and not having to pay anything to anyone. You would be a king, within the bounds of natural law, and you would have the ultimate freedom to live your life and provide for your family. You would have your own realm, you could make your own flag, have your own family customs and traditions, and really live the way you want, such a novel concept in a "free country". If you wanted to, you could work the land and live modestly, in the spirit of Henry David Thoreau. If you had that type of freedom through land ownership, land would increase in value overnight


More misconception.  Landowners DO NOT create the value of the land they own. The value is created by others, "the community".  Who creates those land values and who should benefit from them?  The state-protected monopolist, the landowners, or 'society in general', as they created them?  Seeing as people's contribution to [rising] land values is broadly proportional to the value of their output (which is slashed by Income Tax, Sales tax, Property tax, etc), a fair way of allocating the revenues from taxes on land values would be to reduce taxes on output (production i.e. Income Taxes). which will encourage enterprise.

Tell me who creates land values? Is it the person who happens to 'own' each individual plot from time to time, or 'society in general' - including those who don't happen to own land?  Society in general creates the values in land. 




> Land owners would ensure that their land stays enriched, arable, and beautiful for their posterity and we would move closer to a truly sustainable world.


Arable land is always in demand. Nature made it arable with climate water, minerals, etc - NOT the landowner.  The "value" of the land is because other covert that land, so are prepared to pay for it. The produce from that land is what makes it valuable, the landowners makes profit on his toil to produce food and rightly so. But it is clear he DID NOT make the value in the land. Others did that collectively.




> Taxation is theft.


Bang on!!!   Income tax takes away the fruits of a man labor. Sales taxes penalize trade.  LVT is NOT a tax it *reclaims* community created wealth for community purposes. 

*1. Socialized wealth is used for social puposes. 
2. Private wealth stays private - and not stolen by the state.*

Geoism is very simple.  A massive success wherever it is implemented.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Landowners DO NOT create the value of the land they own. The value is created by others, "the community".


"Value Creation" is one of the Big LVT Geo-communist lies; the idea that "value creation", which is always established between limited numbers of specific competing parties, can be attributed wholesale to some Nebulous Collective called "community", which LVT proponents want treated as a primary, monopolistic, and perpetual party of interest. 

The idea that landowners "do not create" the "value" of the land they own is absolute half-baked bull$#@! -- a big stinky red herring, and false on its face. Anyone with the most basic grasp of economics knows that market value is established ("created") as a function of voluntary cooperative exchanges between willing buyers and sellers, BOTH sides of which contribute to (CREATE) the ongoing, ever-fluctuating market value of any thing, including land.  The reason the Geo-communist take on it is a big fat stinky LVT red herring (emphasis on red) is that this market dynamic for value creation exists regardless whether it is the state or private party that is behaving as landlord (the ultimate party of primary and ongoing financial interest). 

Even if a taxing jurisdiction behaves as the ultimate landlord, under moonbat color of "LVT community", collecting land rents from everyone, the _actual market value_ will *still* be "created" by parties of interest known as buyers and sellers.  The fact that the LVT Commune(ity) moonbats have managed to slip the state in under it all, like a Mafia Don demanding tribute from everyone on its turf, doesn't change that.  So much for the bull$#@! assertion that landowners do nothing to "create" value.  

1) There is no such thing as a "community", let alone one that "creates value". 
2) The state is not, nor should it ever behave as, a for-profit entity; that means no collecting perpetual rents "just because" on infrastructure. 




> Tell me who creates land values?


Anyone with half an economic brain knows that in a free market, market values for ANYTHING are ultimately created by buyers and sellers.  Economics 101 -- any school. 




> The "value" of the land is because other covert that land, so are prepared to pay for it.


The word is "covet". Collectivists are the ultimate coveters, and coveting is not a valid reason for a collectivist state to step in and make perpetual renters out of everyone.  The "coveters" may all want it, but it only the BUYERS who are actually prepared to pay for it. And it is only when these SPECIFIC BUYERS couple together in voluntary exchange with SPECIFIC SELLERS, that VALUE IS CREATED.  By those market participants - not the "community".   




> But it is clear he DID NOT make the value in the land. Others did that collectively.


Sorry, Geo-communist, you're wrong, but that's because you don't know any economics. 




> LVT is NOT a tax it *reclaims* community created wealth for community purposes.


Sorry, Earth Socialist, that's utter poppycock. I want to say "and you know it", but I'll give you credit for being a true believer. 

And, btw, I'm not saying all this with the thought of convincing anyone with glassed-over LVT eyes, or even attempting to debate it with them. I know that's not possible, given the dogmatic religious overtones coming from LVT zealots whose minds are locked in their own circular world, with their own convoluted but ultimately circular logic.  Rather it's for the benefit of anyone else reading.   

:::: BUZZZZZZ! :::: Thanks for playing!

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The idea that landowners "do not create" the "value" of the land they own is absolute half-baked bull$#@!


Your knowledege of economics is lttle more than NIL.  *Land values are created by the community NOT the landowner.  Economic fact.*  LVT reclaims that socially created wealth for social purposes, leaving the indivdual's wealth alone. 

To say apolitical LVT, which is just a tax shift, is Communism shows that you are not very bright at all and displaying a high level of political indoctrination. Get it sorted. You may need professianal help.

Martin Wolf, Chief economist of the Finanacial Times....

*"The essential point is quite simple: the value of resources [inc land] is created by the economic activity of other factors of production."*

----------


## EcoWarrier

LVT (Site Revenue) is not an arbitrary impost made by an authority like any common tax. It is reclaiming by society the free market value of a privilege society has granted to a holder of a land site monopoly - a site which has been enriched and made valuable by society.

Occupation of a * land site* may take the form of freehold, leasehold, pastoral lease or even a mere license.

But *Sites* may be on land, under land in resource extraction, on water, on the sea bed, in the air or wavelengths.

----------


## EcoWarrier

"but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.

Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds".
- Thomas Paine.

Geonomics has Land Value Tax as its core. Where land and its resources are taxed. 
Land is: 

the lakes,in the land (ores, oil, etc),rivers,seabed,sea indoe the limit,airelectromagnetic spectrum 

– all the above COMMONWEALTH. Nature made these, not men. 
Also Geonomics implements Pigovian taxes such as, alcohol, tobacco, congestion charges.

Revenue for common services are reclaimed from economic growth created by commonly created wealth. *The best way to fund common services – by commonly created wealth.*  Obvious.

Geonomics reduces, or eliminates 
1. Income Tax (a tax on production), 
2. Sales Tax (a tax on trade), 

leaving private wealth in private hands.

1. Socialized wealth is socialized
2. Private wealth stays privatized.

This promotes enterprise, as enterprise is not penalized.

*As a briliant off-shoot...*

Land speculation was the root cause of the 1929 and 2008 crashes. Geonomics prevents land speculation and busts and booms, stabilizing the economy. LVT is self regulating as the free-market determines the value of land. Land cannot be taken off-shore and dodged. LVT is cheap tro collect.

----------


## idiom

If you need land to create value and the community is creating the value in the land, where is the community getting the value from?


I am starting to understand why LVT is happy with seizing land from indigenous tribes people. They don't add any value to the land they have been living on for centuries. The true value of the lives and culture of the indigenous peoples comes from the governing community.

Surely any subsistence dweller or Crusoe hypothetical can find and create value from natures resources without any input from the government?

Jeffrey Smith states that LVT has been extremely good at transferring wealth from workers to the governing classes.


If the community is creating all the value then why do we need land-workers at all? Why don't we all sit back and let nature pay us the dividends from the value we are creating by being an unproductive community.

Clearly you are defining the community as unproductive, because, by your own definition, all productive people must own and consume resources in their productivity.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If you need land to create value and the community is creating the value in the land, where is the community getting the value from?


A House.  Split into two parts.  The CAPITAL (the bricks) and the LAND. The Capital depreciates over time, the Land appreciates.  Think hard about why?

Land values are created by Community created economic growth that soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values. That is where the land values come from. They do not come from the sky or the fact you may have painted your window frames (the frames are Capital).  The landowner DID NOT created the land values, the community did. This is economic fact not opinion. 

Once the above is understood the rest is easier. *Currently, the landowner keeps the gains created by the community - freeloading*.  Reclaiming this community created economic growth to pay for community services makes lots of sense. 

*Community growth pays for community services - MAKES LOTS OF SENSE. 
Community services are NOT paid for by private wealth, that stays private by having no Income tax - MAKES LOTS OF SENSE.*

LVT does not seize land from indigenous tribes people. It is a TAX SHIFT.  It leaves land ownership and business alone - all the same.  If land is worth zero then you pay zero LVT. 

The government does not create land values - the free-market does.  

LVT does not siphon money to the government from workers. It pushes government back. Only landowners pay LVT using the Single Tax for personal applications.

----------


## Danan

> Land values are created by Community created economic growth that soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values. That is where the land values come from. They do not come from the sky or the fact you may have painted your window frames (the frames are Capital).  The landowner DID NOT created the land values, the community did. This is economic fact not opinion.



Why is it important who "created the value"?

That's like taking the Obama position "If you're rich you didn't make that on your own!" - So what?

Yeah it's true, if I own a factory, I couldn't earn anything without people who are willing to buy my products. I couldn't create anything without roads, energy and suppliers. And it's possible that I only own the stocks but never entered the factory myself. All the wealth creation happened because my workers transformed the raw materials to end-products. Does that mean that the workers are entitled to their share of the profits? Does that mean that the community that provided roads, and energy supply should get a piece of the pie?

Obviously the answer to both questions is, "Hell, no!" Who created the wealth doesn't count at all. That's an entirely irrelevant question. And that's the primary flaw in the Marxist world view. That's were the disproven Capital Theory of Labor originates from.

The owner of the factory is entitled to all the profits because of his ownership. That's it. It has nothing to do with all the other factors regarding "value creation". Obviously a bigger, more advanced and more open society enhances overall value. But not only for land but for everything else too. That doesn't mean that everybody has a right to profit from other's property though.

You can own land like every other property by having a better claim than everybody else. Since we don't like to kill each other permanently we developed mutually accepted institutions who decide for us peacefully which person has the best claim if there is a disagreement. Everything else originates from full ownership (which you don't really believe in, in the case of land).

----------


## idiom

> LVT does not seize land from indigenous tribes people. It is a TAX SHIFT.  It leaves land ownership and business alone - all the same.  If land is worth zero then you pay zero LVT.


Every example I have examined of LVT being implemented has been _invariably_ associated with massive seizures of indigenous people lands shortly afterwards for the good of the community.

What possible moral grounds could you have to roll into a country, declare yourself a 'community' and that you are soaking value into the land around you thus giving you the right to relocate natives wherever you wish???

_You claim that complaining about how a government treats those who cannot defend themselves is "scraping the bottom of the barrel". I think that rather it is the first test a system of governance or taxation or tax-shiftation should be examined with._

----------


## Steven Douglas

> What possible moral grounds could you have to roll into a country, declare yourself a 'community' and that you are soaking value into the land around you thus giving you the right to relocate natives wherever you wish???


Easy, when you consider the utterly socialist mechanics underpinnings, wherein everyone who holds land exclusively is presumed to be depriving everyone else of their "natural liberty rights", and for which there must be "just compensation" (whatever the $#@! that means).  In Kiaochow, China, everyone who was displaced from their homes and lands were "justly compensated" (read=paid the lowest frozen prices possible before being kicked completely the $#@! out).  




> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~geost...gdaocolony.pdf
> *Shaken, Not Stirred: Segregated Colonial Space and
> Radical Alterity during the First Phase of German
> Colonialism in Kiaochow, 18971904*
> 
> In the words of a German newspaper published in China at the time of the annexation, the Chinese were driven out of old Qingdao. 
> One of the first interventions by Admiral Diederichs was to *forbid all land sales in the leasehold without his approval*. Proclamations to this effect in Chinese were posted in the villages.
> 
> Diederichs pressured county officials into giving him copies of the tax books, which he used, along with consulting local experts, to determine who owned each plot of land in the leased territory.
> ...



Yeah, you could call the gated LVT community of Kiaochow, China a screaming economic success...so long as you're a hive-minded collectivist who thinks in aggregate terms only, and provided you are endowed with a sociopathic disregard toward the individuals whose lives were ruined along the way.

----------


## Len Larson

Large scale speculation (in land or anything else) is everywhere a symptom of cronyism. Proponents of LVT fail to recognize the complicity of the govt., thus the proposed solution is more govt. LOL. 

Why don't we try more freedom instead?

BTW, it's laughable to suggest that Churchill fought against the English Landholders. He was, after all, a part of the system that secured their privileges.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Why is it important who "created the value"?


Because who created it, it is theirs.  The value belongs to the community. With LVT thyey reclaim that value to pay for community services and leave people's private wealth in income (the fruits of their labors) alone.

The profits of a factory are that of the owners. He made them.  He never made the value in the land under the factory. The community made that.

Get it?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Every example I have examined of LVT being implemented has been _invariably_ associated with massive seizures of indigenous people lands shortly afterwards for the good of the community.


You should stop making things up.  *Again NO siezure of land.  A tax on the value of the land only.*

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Large scale speculation (in land or anything else) is everywhere a symptom of cronyism. Proponents of LVT fail to recognize the complicity of the govt., thus the proposed solution is more govt.


LVT makes less government. It rolls it back  LVT leaves us alone not pestered by Income and Sales tax men. It reduces red tape in tax.  It gives us more freedom.  It stops booms & busts and crashes. It gives economic stability.




> BTW, it's laughable to suggest that Churchill fought against the English Landholders. He was, after all, a part of the system that secured their privileges.


Look up People's Budget 1909. Churchill vehemently fought the landowers.  He wanted LVT introduced.  They set up the offices to do it but WW1 came along. It was being used to great success in Germany's Chinese colony, but WW1 came along.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Originally Posted by *idiom*  
> What possible moral grounds could you have to roll into a country, declare yourself a 'community' and that you are soaking value into the land around you thus giving you the right to relocate natives wherever you wish???
> 			
> 		
> 
> Easy, when you consider the utterly socialist mechanics underpinnings,


This is like reading Laurel & Hardy.

LVT is a tax shift - land ownerships stays the same, business behaviour stays the same. All stays the same.  That well known Commie Winston Churchil was great advocate of LVT.




> In Kiaochow, China, everyone who was displaced from their homes


That was a nice joke Ollie    When did you make that one up Ollie.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
> 
> 
> In Kiaochow, China, everyone who was displaced from their homes...
> 
> 
> That was a nice joke Ollie When did you make that one up Ollie. That was a nice joke Ollie    When did you make that one up Ollie.


Oh, sorry, did you miss the link I provided? Here it is for your convenience, amusement, $#@!s and giggles, whatever: 

[SOURCE] <--- Click here!

I didn't write it. That paper was prepared by Professor George Steinmetz of the University of Michigan, for a Johns Hopkins Workshop in Comparative History of Science and Technology ("Science, Technology and Modernity: Colonial Cities in Asia, 1890-1940,” Baltimore, January 16-17, 2009)

It's an extremely well written paper, fully sourced. I assumed you were aware of the history of Qingdao/Kiaochow, since it is held up so often as a shining example of LVT success.  It never occurred to me that you might have just picked that up as a soundbite from an LVT leaflet, without actually researching it yourself.  

I guess the joke's on you, eh, Stanley? A fine kettle of LVT fish!

----------


## idiom

> You should stop making things up.  *Again NO siezure of land.  A tax on the value of the land only.*


Okie dokie, _the examples of LVT you_ have provided in the real world all look like this:




> The policies of the Kuomintang after 1945 (Read "LVT") were in many ways similar and just as devastating as those of the Japanese. All land in the mountain areas was nationalised, for example, with Aborigines retaining only limited use rights; just as the Japanese had done, the Kuomintang authorities adopted policies designed to assimilate the indigenous populations, prohibiting the teaching of their languages and prescribing not only the use of Mandarin, but also the adoption of Chinese names...
> 
> Legislation adopted in 1968, ostensibly to protect Aboriginal lands, in reality had the almost contrary effect: unless land was cultivated for 10 years, it became state property. This meant that Aborigines had to abandon their traditional hunting, gathering, and slash-and-burn agricultural activities, thus signaling a near deathblow to many aspects of their cultures. The legislation also contained a number of ways for government and Han Chinese individuals and corporations to ‘lease' land for commercial and other uses, and these often resulted in further disenfranchising indigenous peoples from any real control over their remaining land."


Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

Tell me again what happens to people living on land who can't or won't pay what the government decides is a fair trade for the value crystals beneath their feet?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Okie dokie, _the examples of LVT you_ have provided in the real world all look like this:


In some societies land was alwasy publicly owned, as in Hong Kong as it was a Crown Colony. They then lease land (a defacto LVT).

LVT is Land Value Tax.  A tax on the VALUE of land - not seizure - not public owership.  Look at the 26 examples given. None had land seizure.

Stop being silly.  Do not fall in line with many of the nutballs on these forums, who shout freedom and do not even know what it is. Open your mind you have all to gain.  Proper freedom.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Talk about tribes...

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Oh, sorry, did you miss the link I provided?


LVT rectified the initial injustice.

----------


## idiom

> In some societies land was alwasy publicly owned, as in Hong Kong as it was a Crown Colony. They then lease land (a defacto LVT).
> 
> LVT is Land Value Tax.  A tax on the VALUE of land - not seizure - not public owership.  Look at the 26 examples given. None had land seizure.
> 
> Stop being silly.  Do not fall in line with many of the nutballs on these forums, who shout freedom and do not even know what it is. Open your mind you have all to gain.  Proper freedom.


Nearly all of the 26 had land seizures.

And you haven't quite explained what happens when someone doesn't pay the land value tax on the land value generated by the community. Clearly they don't forfeit anything.... right?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Nearly all of the 26 had land seizures.


NONSENSE!!!!  Stop making things up you brainwashed fool.  Get your mind sorted.




> And you haven't quite explained what happens when someone doesn't pay the land value tax on the land value generated by the community. Clearly they don't forfeit anything.... right?


What happens is the same as what happens now when you do not pay debts.  LVT is a tax shift. It does not change laws. 

LVT is not a Welfare handout.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> NONSENSE!!!!  Stop making things up you brainwashed fool.  Get your mind sorted.
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens is the same as what happens now when you do not pay debts.*  LVT is a tax shift. It does not change laws. 
> 
> LVT is not a Welfare handout.


Called Land Seizure

----------


## idiom

> NONSENSE!!!!  Stop making things up you brainwashed fool.  Get your mind sorted.
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is the same as what happens now when you do not pay debts.  LVT is a tax shift. It does not change laws. 
> 
> LVT is not a Welfare handout.


So what you are saying is that people who can't pay their LVT might have to find somewhere else to live?

----------


## Danke

I am not persuaded one way or the other.  I believe in property rights, yet I know the history that either granted land rights over indigenous people's claim to resources,  but that they lacked the legal (western) form outside of force/warfare to guarantee access to the resources, or the past feudal system of land granting.   So someone homesteads land and fences it off.  The indigenous people no longer have access to hunting and fishing, and in some cases, like Africa, farming that same land.

So the government through force basically allowed some to homestead and take the land, and their descendant via blood lines now have vast stakes in land (and mineral rights) that no one could accumulate today, as their ancestors did.  It is now price prohibitive.

I don't want to take away one's property, but I realize the unfairness of how the property was acquired, past on and the laws that prevent new forces from taking it via the fruits of one's own labor/effort, they are being just as heavily taxed but are not on equal standing of current land holders.   Meaning, it was taken by force of government backing with the military, but the individual or independent groups although taxed are prevented from doing the same thing.

Not offering any solutions, but I see the unfairness of the current setup.

----------


## Len Larson

Googling "1909 Churchill Budget Cuts" gives this page in the first five results:
The Peoples Budget: Causes and Consequences by Professor Martin Pugh
Selected quotes from the article:



> Summary: The genesis of the 1909 budget was the need for more taxation and a reappraisal of ways to raise revenue but opposition in the House of Lords invited the Liberals to curb the power of that House. When achieved it speeded the decline of the peerage and moves toward social change and the interventionist State.
> ...
> 
> For some time he and Winston Churchill, President of the Board of Trade, had been planning a series of social reforms which could only be accomplished by expanding the resources of the State. In this sense the budget was a very political measure not a mere matter of balancing the books. In view of the subsequent reaction there has always been a suspicion that Lloyd George deliberately designed his budget to provoke the House of Lords into rejecting it and thereby creating the maximum political benefit.
> 
> ...
> 
> The only aspect of the 1909 budget which failed to survive was Lloyd Georges famous land taxes. The laborious process of land valuation went ahead up to 1914. But during the war his involvement in the coalition government put the whole enterprise in jeopardy. Although Lloyd George remained prime minister until 1922 he was too dependent on his Conservative colleagues to resurrect the land taxes; by 1920 they had been abandoned.
> 
> ...


Some may disagree, but most proponents of Liberty would view this article as a shameful indictment of George and Churchill. The fact that the LVT was abandoned when it became expedient to do so speaks volumes. I suspect that LVT was from the beginning nothing more than a political weapon that took on a life of its own. Thus LVT proponents are the victims of tragic hoax and are to be pitied for being dupes.

Oh, and Churchill's "vehement opposition" only extended to those cronies who were not "his", rather than against the practice as a whole. Indeed, with the expansion of the state, George and Churchill created whole new classes of cronies.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Googling "1909 Churchill Budget Cuts" gives this page in the first five results:
> The Peoples Budget: Causes and Consequences by Professor Martin Pugh
> Selected quotes from the article:
> 
> Some may disagree, but most proponents of Liberty would view this article as a shameful indictment of George and Churchill. The fact that the LVT was abandoned when it became expedient to do so speaks volumes. I suspect that LVT was from the beginning nothing more than a political weapon that took on a life of its own. Thus LVT proponents are the victims of tragic hoax and are to be pitied for being dupes.
> 
> Oh, and Churchill's "vehement opposition" only extended to those cronies who were not "his", rather than against the practice as a whole. Indeed, with the expansion of the state, George and Churchill created whole new classes of cronies.


WW1 came in the way of implementation. Not to mention the powerful landed House of Lords. Many against could mess it up after LVT became law.  Churchill knew that. 

LVT was not a political stunt and people duped. The offices were setup. After WW1 coalitions came about which gave a climate difficult for passing an LVT law. Around 1930 there was a Labour/Tory coalition. The Labour finance minister wanted LVT but the others (backed by landowners) stopped it.

The UK is the only major country in the world near to implementing LVT on a national level. Denmark did it to success, but quite a small country.  If Churchill did get LVT through, the world would be a different place, and no WW2, as many otter countries would have adopted the success of the UK.

The USA has had better success at geting LVT at local levels.  The UK cannot do that because of their laws.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I am not persuaded one way or the other.  I believe in property rights,


I think you mean Land rights. LVT does not negate those. It just reclaims the community created value soaked into the land values. LVT does not confiscate land despite the nonsense spouted by nutballs on these forums.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So what you are saying is that people who can't pay their LVT might have to find somewhere else to live?


No. You are saying that. He has rolled out the old widow bogey as Churchill called it. What happens now when you cannot pay debts? Do we allow peple a free ride now with debts?

----------


## EcoWarrier



----------


## idiom

> No. You are saying that. He has rolled out the old widow bogey as Churchill called it. What happens now when you cannot pay debts? Do we allow peple a free ride now with debts?


Okay, so families who have lived in the same location for thousands of years suddenly have your community roll up and impose debts because you think they owe you something. In communities where debts cannot be used to claim land.

But you have the god given right to tell people where they can and cannot live.


Oh and if people had followed your advice Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would have stayed home. Do you even read what you write?

----------


## Len Larson

> WW1 came in the way of implementation. Not to mention the powerful landed House of Lords. Many against could mess it up after LVT became law.  Churchill knew that.


Uh-huh and Churchill also knew that war has never been used to justify pushing through a new tax system?
More likely Churchill had become entrenched in the existing power structure and realized that LVT might disrupt his comfy position and inconvenience his cronies.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Okay, so families who have lived in the same location for thousands of years suddenly have your community roll up and impose debts


Debt is only when you do not pay. It is no differnt to now. Do not pay and a system is in place to recover the debts.  No change.  

If the "old widow" gets older and lives in massive house that is worth a fortune, and she cannot pay the property tax, what occurs right now?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Uh-huh and Churchill also knew that war has never been used to justify pushing through a new tax system?


You are confused. Churchill never started WW1 or WW2. He never used it to push through a superior tax system for sure.

Coalitions between WW1 & WW2 stopped the LVT introduction. The Tories, backed by landed people, were totally against LVT as it brought justice and fairness and stopped free-loaders. But now even they have a small LVT lobby.

----------


## idiom

> Debts is only when you do not pay. It is no differnt to now. Do not pay and a system is in place to recover the debts.  No change.  
> 
> If the "old widow" gets older and lives in massive house that is worth a fortune, and she cannot pay the property tax, what occurs right now?


Not every country has property taxes right now. A number of countries don't allow seizure of land for debt payment. You want to change that because you want to enable the super-rich to have access to the poor's land. The thing keeping them alive.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Coalitions between WW1 & WW2 stopped the LVT introduction. The Tories, backed by landed people, were totally against LVT as it brought justice and fainmes and stopped free-loaders. But now even they have a small LVT lobby.


It always cracks me up when fanatical ideologues reveal their fantasies, as they impute their own rationale and reasoning processes to others, as if everyone was secretly in agreement with their premises. 

*Tories:* (secretly, in a hushed clandestine tone)  "Gentlemen, as Tories who are backed by landed people, we must oppose the Land Value Tax with all our resources and might! Why? Because an imposition of the Land Value Tax will only serve to bring justice and fairness, that is why!  It will also put a stop to landowner freeloading, and what would become of us? We cannot have that!"

Later, upon defeat of the Land Value Tax proposition, as Sir Snidely Whiplash shared a toast with his Tory cronies in Parliament, he was seen stroking his long, black curled mustache and rubbing his hands together, whilst giggling maniacally in villainous landowning glee.  

Now that unfairness, injustice and landowner privilege and freeloading was secured in England, Sir Whiplash contemplated life, and possibly a new wife, in the Americas - a life somewhere near train tracks, and possibly some beautiful damsels who might not be able to pay their rent -- and, of course, a source for a supply of good rope.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> It always cracks me up when fanatical ideologues reveal their fantasies,


Your fantacies is some sort of freedom - freedom to free-load off the rest of us.  Not pay your way.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Not every country has property taxes right now. A number of countries don't allow seizure of land for debt payment. You want to change that because you want to enable the super-rich to have access to the poor's land. The thing keeping them alive.


 You don't know what I propose to charge - you make things up. Who are these super-rich you are on about? Boy you are very confused with all sorts of strange notions bouncing around your skull. If you do not pay your propertry taxes, mechanisms are enacted to recover the debt. Simple. That is how it works right now. You are saying if someone does not pay their property taxes then we must ignore the debt. Old and infirm people may have these paid for them by the Welfare system.

----------


## soulcyon

> You don't know what I propose to charge - you make things up. Who are these super-rich you are on about? Boy you are very confused with all sorts of strange notions bouncing around your skull. If you do not pay your propertry taxes, mechanisms are enacted to recover the debt. Simple. That is how it works right now. You are saying if someone does not pay their property taxes then we must ignore the debt. Old and infirm people may have these paid for them by the Welfare system.


This is assuming that "property tax" is in place because the government owns your land - e.g, you cannot live on that land without payment to the government.  Of course, one could argue that without the government to properly assign land to its citizens, there would be a huge land grab/land rush, just like the gold rush of the mid 1800s.  But it would be fascinating to see how private property on a national scale would ensue.

----------


## Len Larson

Julian Simon demolished the premise underlying LVT many years ago. Here is an excerpt from chapter 8 of his book "The Ultimate Resource II" 
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/




> IS LAND DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RESOURCES?
> 
>    Many people consider land to be a special kind of resource. But like other natural 
> resources, land is the result of the human creative process, as discussed in chapters 
> 1-3.  Though the stock of usable land seems fixed at any moment, it is constantly 
> being increased - at a rapid rate in many cases - by the clearing of new fields or the 
> reclamation of wasteland.  Land also is constantly being enhanced by increasing the 
> number of crops grown per year on each unit of land, and by increasing the yield per 
> crop with better farming methods and with chemical fertilizer. 
> ...


My emphasis added to the last sentence.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> This is assuming that "property tax" is in place because the government owns your land


It is not assuming the land is common owned at all.  Stop making things up.




> - e.g, you cannot live on that land without payment to the government.


There is no change for occupying the land with LVT. LVT merely reclaims community created wealth that soaked into the land and crystallized as land values.  If it is worth next to nothing you pay next to nothing.

LVT is a TAX SHIFT, not public ownership of land. It taxes values of land.  LVT is a tax in form but not in substance.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Julian Simon has been demolished many times . He is plainly stupid.  A monkey on a typewriter.




> Many people consider land to be a special kind of resource. But like other natural resources, land is the result of the human creative process,


Land was created by humans?  This one is in La-La land, and you are as bad for posting such tripe.

< snip the rest of the drivel >

----------


## silverhandorder

What if community does not want to "reclaim" wealth? Let's say this is a community of libertarians that respect property rights for land? They also do not want government services and etc?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What if community does not want to "reclaim" wealth? Let's say this is a community of libertarians that respect property rights for land? They also do not want government services and etc?


You are confused.  Geoism respects rights to occupy land.  LVT is a tax shift, from production, and people's wages, to reclaiming commonly created wealth. Simple, easy, even you may understand that.

If they think they are not in a community then they need professioanl help. In short, they want to free-load and live off the backs of others.

----------


## rpwi

> Julian Simon demolished the premise underlying LVT many years ago. Here is an excerpt from chapter 8 of his book "The Ultimate Resource II" ....


He takes a very literal definition of land.  The problem with property rights in land being sacrosanct is not so much that people can't find new land (plenty in the deserts, arctic poles and oceans).  Land varies in quality and to a good degree the quality of the land is determined by how little effort it takes to extract its fruits.

For example, let's take the world-wide supply of coal.

As a measure of the effort it takes to extract the coal, let come up with a fictitious measures of hours spent to harvest a unit of coal.  (HC)

If we were omniscient, we could measure the supply of coal in these terms. 

So the amount of coal that takes 0-10 HC: 1,000,000
11-100 HC: 3,000,000
101-1000 HC: 100,000,000 
1001-1,000,000 HC: 1,000,000,000

One can not make the argument that coal is not zero-sum, because say the '1001-1,000,000' HC is not presently being harvested.  The issue is not necessarily scarce coal literally (although that could be that case in some natural resource sectors), but rather scarce coal that is readily harvestable.

----------


## silverhandorder

> You are confused.  Geoism respects rights to occupy land.  LVT is a tax shift, from production, and people's wages, to reclaiming commonly created wealth. Simple, easy, even you may understand that.
> 
> If they think they are not in a community then they need professioanl help. In short, they want to free-load and live off the backs of others.


No that is not what I am saying. What if 99.9% of community does not want LVT? Is it still unjust not to have it?

----------


## Origanalist

> No that is not what I am saying. What if 99.9% of community does not want LVT? Is it still unjust not to have it?


Why yes, yes it is. The *commun*ity just needs to get it's head right.

----------


## Len Larson

> He takes a very literal definition of land.  The problem with property rights in land being sacrosanct is not so much that people can't find new land (plenty in the deserts, arctic poles and oceans).  Land varies in quality and to a good degree the quality of the land is determined by how little effort it takes to extract its fruits.
> 
> For example, let's take the world-wide supply of coal.
> 
> As a measure of the effort it takes to extract the coal, let come up with a fictitious measures of hours spent to harvest a unit of coal.  (HC)
> 
> If we were omniscient, we could measure the supply of coal in these terms. 
> 
> So the amount of coal that takes 0-10 HC: 1,000,000
> ...


Ah, but the LVTrs whole schtick is based on the presumed literal scarcity of land rather than an economic argument about marginal costs to bring land into production.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> No that is not what I am saying. What if 99.9% of community does not want LVT? Is it still unjust not to have it?


The .1% of the community (a lone Geo-hobo who just hopped off a box car and wandered into that town to settle) would still feel the need to be justly compensated for his natural liberty rights deprivation. That deprivation is for all the land in the town, which he would "objectively and indisputably otherwise be at liberty to use" if nobody else existed.  He won't see himself as wanting to rob and freeload off of others.  Exactly the opposite, he will see himself as the one having been robbed and freeloaded off already. To him it will be as if he had wandered into a mountain pass and was surrounded by a band of robbers - a community filled with land pirates and land parasites. 

So no, the moment a Geoist walks into a town without LVT, an egregious theft will be said to have occurred, an evil for which all landowners not paying land rents to the state will be guilty.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> No that is not what I am saying. What if 99.9% of community does not want LVT? Is it still unjust not to have it?


 *Wants* and *Needs*. In a third world country I was in, I found that some wanted very expensive Calin Klein underware, as the consumer oriented TV influenced them so much. What they *needed* was sanitation.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Ah, but the LVTrs whole schtick is based on the presumed literal scarcity of land rather than an economic argument about marginal costs to bring land into production.


You are confused. Geonomics, using LVT as its core, is reclaiming *community created wealth, and common wealth in natural resouces, to pay for community services*, leaving private wealth alone and in private pockets.

There are amazing side benefits, which I will not go into right now.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The issue is not necessarily scarce coal literally (although that could be that case in some natural resource sectors), but rather scarce coal that is readily harvestable.


Or land in a location that may bring great surrounding economic benefits.

Think about why land in prime locations is worth more, than land in remote locations. Why are people prepared to pay the price and rents of that land?  Because of the economic benefits that location gives, in relation to jobs, schools, leisure, etc, etc.

----------


## idiom

> You don't know what I propose to charge - you make things up. Who are these super-rich you are on about? Boy you are very confused with all sorts of strange notions bouncing around your skull. If you do not pay your propertry taxes, mechanisms are enacted to recover the debt. Simple. That is how it works right now. You are saying if someone does not pay their property taxes then we must ignore the debt. Old and infirm people may have these paid for them by the Welfare system.


You propose to take people who live freely without property tax on lands they have lived on for thousands of years and impose 'tax-shifts' on them. Just as happened in Taiwan and New Zealand and most of the other countries in your examples. When they can't pay you propose to move them elsewhere.

That is exactly what you propose and what happened in the 'successful' examples you outlined.

After all, you can't have the natives hogging all the communities wealth and resources. They don't deserve it, they are making use of it like you could. You are much greater and wiser than they are. Certainly you should levy new 'tax-shifts' against them to show them the error of their ways. So that you can give them their much needed better sanitation in their new community homes. So they they can thrive on community welfare.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You propose to take people who live freely without property tax on lands they have lived on for thousands of years and impose 'tax-shifts' on them. Just as happened in Taiwan and New Zealand and most of the other countries in your examples. When they can't pay you propose to move them elsewhere.


No one is forcibly moving anyone anywhere. Property (tax on buildings) is eliminated. If an old person cannot pay for the LVT, then there is exemptions and deferrals payable on sale of land or death.  Simple. It is not rocket science.

You keep on about native US Americans, as if these people are the majority in the USA. They had their lands stolen from them by invaders from the west who coveted their land and its resources. They had no concept of individual land owership. Land was common to the people.

Hitler saw what the USA did, which catapulted the USA into a world economic power, and used it as a precedent for invading and stealing land in the east and eliminating the populations as well - by starvation and death camps. In his mind what was good for the goose was good for the gander.

----------


## idiom

> No one is forcibly moving anyone anywhere. Property (tax on buildings) is eliminated. If an old person cannot pay for the LVT, then there is exemptions and deferrals payable on sale of land or death.  Simple. It is not rocket science.
> 
> You keep on about native US Americans, as if these people are the majority in the USA. They had their lands stolen from them by invaders from the west who coveted their land and its resources. They had no concept of individual land owership. Land was common to the people.
> 
> Hitler saw what the USA did, which catapulted the USA into a world economic power, and used it as a precedent for invading and stealing land in the east and eliminating the populations as well - by starvation and death camps. In his mind what was good for the goose was good for the gander.


I have mentioned Native US Americans _once_. They were not removed with LVT so I had no need to mention them. You did however claim that they are soverign and so should forever be exempt from LVT.

Why can't I be sovereign?



Once again you are rationalising the actions of Hitler. Curious. Do you have any cites to back up your claim that Hitler was emulating America rather than Britain or France in his quest for lebensraum?

Perhaps LVT is better expanded as _Lebensraum_ Value Tax-shift?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I have mentioned Native US Americans _once_. They were not removed with LVT


And they never will be removed by LVT either. I did not claim that they are sovereign and so should forever be exempt from LVT. I never condoned the actions of Hitler. 

I mentioned the actions of the white Americans in moving west stealing land for the natives and Mexicans which catapulted the country to a world economic power. Read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze on this. 

Tooze: Preface xxiiv: 
"America should provide the pivot for our understanding of the Third Reich. In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the USA as the global superpower." 

Tooze: Preface xxvi: 
"Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the USA" 

The UK became a world player over centuries building up an empire and world trade routes. The USA did it quickly by expanding west taking land. The precedence of the USA in taking land and removing the populations was one way Germany could be an instant major economy, major power, self sufficient in most aspects and have influence. 

The German mentality was one of being a world economic player alongside the UK and USA.The precedence of the USA's rapid rise to a world economic power, based on land acquisition by force from indigenous people and the Mexicans, and largely eliminating the indigenous populations convinced the Germans they could do the same to their east.

----------


## idiom

I think I can get on board with the Lebensraum Value tax-shift. I just have to understand why I am on the community side and not the wealth hoarding side I guess.

Lets say I live in Vegas. I guess I want to be a Casino owner because they clearly create the land values in Las Vegas. The value of the casino community has seeped out into the land around the Las Vegas strip making that land a lot more valuable than the rest of the desert. Therefore, to be just, LVT should be collected from all the residents of Las Vegas and paid to the Casino owners correct?

----------


## Len Larson

You guys are killing me! 
I may have to edit my ignore list just so I can get in on the fun!

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Therefore, to be just, LVT should be collected from all the residents of Las Vegas and paid to the Casino owners correct?


It would be the only just and fair thing, I think. Hell, I'd settle for dues required to be paid by Geoists for signing onto RPF to troll LVT.  We're creating all the bandwidth value, and the LVT parasites are enjoying all the community created benefits, even as they eroded that value by stinking the place up.  What gives?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Lets say I live in Vegas. I guess I want to be a Casino owner because they clearly create the land values in Las Vegas.


100% incorrect.  You are still very confused.  I could build a casino in the middle of the Sahara with no roads, airport, sewerage, water, electricity, transportation, etc, and the land values would be zero, as no one would go to the casino and no one would work in it. Who builds the infrastructure in Vegas?  Not the casino owners.  

The infrastructure and the community around created the land values.  Look at this. This gives you an idea of how land values came about**:

----------


## idiom

> 100% incorrect.  You are still very confused.  I could build a casino in the middle of the Sahara with no roads, airport, sewerage, water, electricity, transportation, etc, and the land values would be zero, as no one would go to the casino and no one would work in it. Who builds the infrastructure in Vegas?  Not the casino owners.


Right. The Casino Owners travelled to Las Vegas in the '30s because of the huge investment the community there had made in infrastructure? This is your argument?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Right. The Casino Owners travelled to Las Vegas in the '30s because of the huge investment the community there had made in infrastructure? This is your argument?


Look at the video, that explains how land values come about. It is easy and simple to understand.

----------


## idiom

> Look at the video, that explains how land values come about. It is easy and simple to understand.


I did, I watch and read everything you link to no matter how droll.

Explain what would happen to the land values of the residents of Las Vegas if the Casino owners were to leave and let their buildings become derelict?

It is plainly ridiculous to propose that the Casino owners are the beneficiaries of Las Vegas infrastructure and not the other way around.

Do you truly imagine that the casino owners bought a bunch in Las Vegas and did nothing to develop it while waiting decades for Las Vegas to build international airports and housing for thousands of Casino workers and for all those workers to be trained before stealing all that hard work by opportunistically building casinos in vacant lots they owned on the Strip?

That is what that video implies. Simple and easy to understand doesn't stop something being wrong, although it is appealing. What the video misses out on is how much money the land banker lost out on while he or she waited for civilisation to come to them. They would have made a lot more money selling the land and investing it elsewhere. So the land banker actually lost a lot of money and is part of the poorer community and again would actually be on the receiving end of any wealth re-distribution.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Explain what would happen to the land values of the residents of Las Vegas if the Casino owners were to leave and let their buildings become derelict?


All those casino owners would up and move at the same time?  Please get real.

The biggest gainers in Vegas are the Casino owners - they own lots of land as well.  
Did they build Hoover Dam where Vegas gets its pwer from?  No. 
Did they build the roads leading to Vegas?  No. 

The community via its administrators and laws on gambling allowed these casio owners to set up shop.  A act by the community, not casino owners.

The video explains how land values came about,. Look again. Without infrastructure and people *there are no land values*.  The people make the values on many levels.

----------


## idiom

> All those casino owners would up and move at the same time?  Please get real.


The video poses exactly that hypothetical in order to make its argument. I lifted the wording directly from the video.

You are refuting your own video.




> Without infrastructure and people *there are no land values*.


The casinos are the infrastructure. Where would the roads lead? Who would pay license fees to drive on them? Who would the Hoover Dam sell power too?

The casinos make the infrastructure valuable.

Without the casinos Las Vegas would be an economic hole. It would rapidly become a ghost town and no amount of levying land taxes would give the people jobs.

Look at any small town with a big employer to see the effect of that employer leaving. By your argument the prosperity of the town should go up when the employer leaves, because they are no longer stealing all the value in the land for themselves, they are just leaving it there for the community.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The video poses exactly that hypothetical in order to make its argument. I lifted the wording directly from the video.


The video is explaining simply to the likes of you how land values came about. It is to educate you.

The casinos are NOT the infrastructure. Find out what infrastrucrtures is. Look at the video again. 

Gambling is the industry of Vegas, as cars is to Detroit. The commuity, via their reps, made the laws that encouraged the gambing industry, as other laws encouraged the car industry elsewhere.

Without the car industry Detroit would be an economic hole.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Johannesburg, South Africa has no tax on buildings. The entire property tax is on land. Mason Gaffney, a highly respected land economist and Professor of Economics at UC Riverside, visited Johannesburg. This is what he said about it.

"The miracle of Johannesburg: Jo-burg is a Bootstrap City. It should have died when its gold mines played out, like a proper mining boomtown; instead it remains as the economic capital of its nation and half a continent."Johannesburg defies most laws of urban economics, e.g. that mines create no great cities. Explainers still site the mines, but its mines have played out; it should now be a ghost town. It has no harbor, no water transportation, nor even any gravity water supply. It is, in fact, on a ridge top, the Rand or "reef," at an elevation of 5,000 ft. Unlike Chicago or Boston, it has no sunburst of rail lines, except perhaps what it has attracted itself. It is "on the main rail line," Explainers say, but so are 1000 miles of other sites. The natural site lacks outstanding amenities, and certainly can't hold a candle to Cape Town. Jo-burg has no governmental economic base. Surrounding farmland is poor. 

Why Johannesburg? Why is it the largest city, the center of finance, industry, commerce, and international air travel? As a public finance economist I may overvalue incentive taxation, but Jo-burg has it. _The property tax is on site value only_, and at a high rate: they tell me it is 4%. This is what makes Jo-burg distinctive. Challenge and response: Jo-burg had to do something right in order to survive, and that is what it did. It not only survived, it became and remains Number One. Give me a better explanation and I'll back off. I haven't heard one yet."

Unhappily, the ANC forced Jo-Burg, against its will, to drop taxation on land values (1918 to 1996). The city is now mired in disinvestment and unemployment. Similar situations occurred in Pittsburgh (Land Value Tax (LVT) dropped in 1990), NYC (LVT was dropped in the late 1930s) and declined until WW2 brought full employment.

However these examples do show the stark difference of the before and after. But the detractors will no doubt blame the transition from apartite and the world slumps (2008 and the 1930s) but not the real reason for the decline - *the removal of LVT*.

Mason's observations are spot on. Jo-Burg is in a God forsaken part of South Africa and had no right to be the economic super-city for all Southern Africa below the equator. Nothing was going for it at all. It comes across as an artificial creation I suppose like Brasilia. Mason hit the nail on the head in defining the success of this anomaly. *Land Value Tax (LVT) can makes cities prosper where they have no right to.*

----------


## idiom

> Johannesburg, South Africa has no tax on buildings. The entire property tax is on land. Mason Gaffney, a highly respected land economist and Professor of Economics at UC Riverside, visited Johannesburg. This is what he said about it.
> 
> "The miracle of Johannesburg: Jo-burg is a Bootstrap City. It should have died when its gold mines played out, like a proper mining boomtown; instead it remains as the economic capital of its nation and half a continent."Johannesburg defies most laws of urban economics, e.g. that mines create no great cities. Explainers still site the mines, but its mines have played out; it should now be a ghost town. It has no harbor, no water transportation, nor even any gravity water supply. It is, in fact, on a ridge top, the Rand or "reef," at an elevation of 5,000 ft. Unlike Chicago or Boston, it has no sunburst of rail lines, except perhaps what it has attracted itself. It is "on the main rail line," Explainers say, but so are 1000 miles of other sites. The natural site lacks outstanding amenities, and certainly can't hold a candle to Cape Town. Jo-burg has no governmental economic base. Surrounding farmland is poor. 
> 
> Why Johannesburg? Why is it the largest city, the center of finance, industry, commerce, and international air travel? As a public finance economist I may overvalue incentive taxation, but Jo-burg has it. _The property tax is on site value only_, and at a high rate: they tell me it is 4%. This is what makes Jo-burg distinctive. Challenge and response: Jo-burg had to do something right in order to survive, and that is what it did. It not only survived, it became and remains Number One. Give me a better explanation and I'll back off. I haven't heard one yet."
> 
> Unhappily, the ANC forced Jo-Burg, against its will, to drop taxation on land values (1918 to 1996). The city is now mired in disinvestment and unemployment. Similar situations occurred in Pittsburgh (Land Value Tax (LVT) dropped in 1990), NYC (LVT was dropped in the late 1930s) and declined until WW2 brought full employment.
> 
> However these examples do show the stark difference of the before and after. But the detractors will no doubt blame the transition from apartite and the world slumps (2008 and the 1930s) but not the real reason for the decline - *the removal of LVT*.
> ...


So,

- No natural resources
- Little Infrastructure
- Little Government economic activity

Yet it was successful. Tell me again why Jo-burg owed so much of its success to 'the community'?

Oh..... Low taxes. So the 'community' _not_ placing a burden on business is what did it?

Lets set up two identical towns 100km apart, one with 80% LVT and one with 1% LVT. Do you propose that the businesses will all migrate to the town with higher LVT?

----------


## idiom

> Without the car industry Detroit would be an economic hole.


But, without the car industry they could just implement LVT right? The people and the infrastructure are still there... they could just mine all the value crystals.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So,
> 
> - No natural resources
> - Little Infrastructure
> - Little Government economic activity


Pay attention at the back!  Jo'burg has lots of infrastructure now. Government & private economic activity.




> Lets set up two identical towns 100km apart, one with 80% LVT and one with 1% LVT. Do you propose that the businesses will all migrate to the town with higher LVT?


Yes. The LVT keeps down or eliminates corporation and income taxes - as in Hong Kong, which is a major world economic player.

----------


## idiom

> Pay attention at the back!  Jo'burg has lots of infrastructure now. Government & private economic activity.


The infrastructure arrived after the successful economic activity. Ergo the infrastructure owes its existence to the economic activity, not the other way around.




> Yes. The LVT keeps down or eliminates corporation and income taxes - as in Hong Kong, which a world economic player.


Hong Kong is 85% services, nearly all production has moved China to escape LVT. It makes it a huge bubble economy so it feels recessions more than it should. LVT taxes land and resources... Services like finance end up with very very low taxes.

You don't seem to understand terms like identical.

*With no other taxes at all, Town A has an LVT of 4% and Town B has an LVT of 80%. Caeteris paribus, which town grows faster?

You answered Town B before. At what point does LVT stop enhancing growth? 200%? 500%?*

----------


## EcoWarrier

Companies and people are attracted to Hong Kong because of the low corporation and income taxes that taxing land brought about.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Companies and people are attracted to Hong Kong because of the low corporation and income taxes that taxing land brought about.


Yes, and also for the view of the Hong Kong Harbor, especially at night, after the moon comes out and pushes the sun down into the ocean and drags all the stars around.  That's when dogs bark loudest, what with being wagged by their tails and all.

----------


## EcoWarrier

The irrationality of the system right now is that we have masses of Capital and masses of unemployed Labor side by side in a world which is full of social need.  How stupid is that?

Capital is looking to reestablish the basis for the extraction of surpluses - the profit level.  The irrational way they are going about it, is suppressing Labor and suppressing the circulation of Capital.

Two questions arise:

How do we get all this Capital & equipment and Labor together to meets the dire obvious needs?How do we prevent the situation from occurring in the first place?

The answer is ...Geonomics.  Based on using the common wealth created by land and its resources.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Yes, and also for the view of the Hong Kong Harbor, especially at night,


Amazing. A world economic dynamo is based on a view. We could have posters of Hong Kong harbor at the end of every street and then we could all be loaded.

----------


## EcoWarrier

In January 2008 2 million people in the USA lost their homes.
In January 2008 Wall St gave itself bonuses of $32 billion.

They gave themselves that bonus for crashing the world's systemically flawed financial system.

What we needs is a self-regulating system that does not crash. Geonomics is the answer. Based on using the common wealth created by land and its resources.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> What we needs is a self-regulating system that does not crash. Geonomics is the answer. Based on using the common wealth created by land and its resources.


The free market in itself is a system that cannot crash. 
Small portions of the system might go down, but this is more like avalanche control. 
Companies fail, because they make mistakes. But this does not matter in the long run, the business assets can be sold or auctioned, the skilled workers can find employment elsewhere. 
It is exactly when there is meddling in the free market, that there will be a buildup of too much snow. Investment is no longer allocated in the most efficient and beneficial way, but in a less efficient and inherently unfair way. After some time, the bust is inevitable. This is the crash you are talking about. 

In this topic you claim;
-LVT is a tax SHIFT, rather then tax reduction. 
-LVT would keep the 'free market' from crashing.

These two claims contradict each other.
Taxation is one of the influences on the free market which have a devastating effect on the stability. I accept that a single tax, that's the same for everyone would certainly be healthier for the free market. But there's still taxation. The big problem with that; spending. Spending is probably more important as a manipulator of the free market, it's the direct allocation of wealth where it would otherwise (probably) not have been. So you propose a less burdensome tax form, but the same amount of market manipulations... 

Don't forget about the moral argument on taxation, it's the best argument, and IMO the only one you need. Taxation = theft.

----------


## idiom

> In January 2008 2 million people in the USA lost their homes.
> In January 2008 Wall St gave itself bonuses of $32 billion.
> 
> They gave themselves that bonus for crashing the world's systemically flawed financial system.
> 
> What we needs is a self-regulating system that does not crash. Geonomics is the answer. Based on using the common wealth created by land and its resources.


Hong Kong crashed pretty hard in '97.

Try again.

LVT has a demonstrated history of corrupting regulators which is how Wall Street gets its bonuses. A free Market is a self-regulating system.




> Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Focus please 2 million Americans losing their homes is not Hong Kong.

LVT has not demonstrated history of amazing success.

I wrote that slow because I know you can't read fast.

----------


## EcoWarrier

The free market in itself is a system that cannot crash when underpinned by Geonomics, otherwise it may crash.

You are right in that it is exactly when there is meddling in the free market, that there will be a buildup of too much snow. 




> In this topic you claim;
> -LVT is a tax SHIFT, rather then tax reduction. 
> -LVT would keep the 'free market' from crashing.


LVT is a tax reduction. Studies, and actual real life experience, show that less tax overall is paid.

The 1929 & 2008 crashes were because debt up on debt was poured into LAND because gains were tax free. LVT prevents harmful land speculation preventing crashes.  Money can then be poured into productive enterprise. 

Geonomics does not tax private wealth, only commonly created wealth. 

Taxation = theft.  Correct. Taxing private effort is theft, taxing community created wealth for community services is not.  Get it?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> LVT is a tax reduction. Studies, and actual real life experience, show that less tax overall is paid.


Less tax paid = less spending. But government's tendency to grow spending, will turn into a tendency to raise LVT as well. 
Government wants more power, that's what government is about, get it ?





> Taxation = theft.  Correct. Taxing private effort is theft, taxing community created wealth for community services is not.  Get it?


There's no such thing as community created wealth. Value of products or services are highly subjective and based on personal opinion. There's no role of the community in that. Even if there would be such a thing as community created wealth, having it taxed would still be theft.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Less tax paid = less spending.


Exactly. Enterprise is encouraged, less welfare, etc.  Also taxation is coming from commonly created wealth, not private. Common wealth that is appropriated is claimed back and does not end up in the pockets of the very rich - *free-loaders*.  With Geonomics the rich will stay rich anyhow, as enterprise will flourish under Geoism. However the imbalance will be less and *fairer*.

*The top 1% of the US own more wealth than the bottom 90%.*  Always remember that. 




> There's no such thing as community created wealth.


Look again.  If you still think so, get out of La-La land.

We NEED taxation to run common services. Geonomics takes it from commonly created wealth, where it should taken from, leaving individuals productive effort alone.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> We NEED taxation to run common services. Geonomic s takes it from commonly cretaed wealth.


What common services ?

Roads filled with potholes ?
Have your godgiven rights trampled on by a monopoly police force that's nearly unaccountable to the real employer; the taxpayer ?
Have brown people bombed in foreign lands ?
'Regulate' the internet ?

If you want services, go out in the free market, and pay someone for the service or product you want. 
Don't be a shill for statism, I don't care who's going to pick the proverbial cotton, someone will find a solution and make a ton of money on it. May they reap ALL the fruits of their endeavor.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Exactly. Enterprise is encouraged, less welfare, etc.  Also taxation is coming from commonly created wealth, not private. Common wealth that is appropriated is claimed back and does not end up in the pockets of the very rich - free-loaders.
> 
> *The top 1% of the US own more wealth than the bottom 90%.*  Always remember that. 
> 
> 
> 
> Look again.  If you still think so, get out of La-La land.
> 
> We NEED taxation to run common services. Geonomic s takes it from commonly created wealth.


What common services do we need taxation for?

----------


## idiom

> What we needs is a self-regulating system that does not crash. Geonomics is the answer. Based on using the common wealth created by land and its resources.


Hong Kong had Geonomics. Hong Kong crashed.




> Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft.


With no other taxes at all, Town A has an LVT of 4% and Town B has an LVT of 80%. _Caeteris paribus_, which town grows faster?

You answered Town B before. At what point does LVT stop enhancing growth? 200%? 500%?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Hong Kong had Geonomics. Hong Kong crashed.


Hong Kong does not have Geonomics. It a loose version land taxing which shows that even with a loose version there are massive gains.

Hong Kong NEVER crashed. Duh!!  You must stop making things up.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What common services ?


All of them. 

LVT is brilliant at funding infrastructure. The most given examples are the London Underground Jubilee Line rail extension and the Hong Kong Metro. In London it costed £3.4 billion to the UK taxpayers. Yet the land values around the line increased by £14 billion.  They could have made 4 exensions by clawing back the land values the line created and not used central taxes, using commonly created wealth.

Hong Kong funded the building of a new underground metro and never used central taxation to do it.  They taxed land. Using commonly created wealth.

----------


## idiom

> Hong Kong does not have Geonomics. It a loose version land taxing which shows that even with a loose version there are massive gains.
> 
> Hong Kong NEVER crashed. Duh!!  You must stop making things up.


Question 1. If Hong Kong never crashed and it doesn't have geonomics, then why would it need geonomics?
Question 2. Why do you keep using Hong Kong as an example of geonomics in action?
Question 3. What does this chart show?




Question 4. If Hong Kong doesn't have Geonomics then why does Jeffery J. Smith say it does?




> Hong Kong is often cited by Fortune magazine as one of the best places in the world to do business (2). The Heritage Foundation ranks it and Singapore as a couple of the freest places on earth. The rankers site the low taxes, low prices, high salaries, and high investments, but somehow leave out that _these are geonomic cities_, recovering far more site rent than most other locations

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Question 1. If Hong Kong never crashed and it doesn't have geonomics, then why would it need geonomics?


Hong Kong has minimal geonomics. But as I have explained to you, but it never sinks in, even with a minimal implementation Hong Kong thrives.  Get it?

That you for giving the quote from Jeffery J. Smith - President, Geonomy Society 
_Hong Kong is often cited by Fortune magazine as one of the best places in the world to do business (2). The Heritage Foundation ranks it and Singapore as a couple of the freest places on earth. The rankers site the low taxes, low prices, high salaries, and high investments, but somehow leave out that these are geonomic cities, recovering far more site rent than most other locations_

He is highlighting that the success is because of even a small implementation of Geonomics, which many other economists ignore.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> At what point does LVT stop enhancing growth? 200%? 500%?


LVT adds vital stability. No booms and busts when fully implemented.

Hong Kong is small and peripheral to the Asian economy. If Japan crashes, it will take all around. Japan was bit by bit adopting the systemically flawed western economic system.  The overall Hong Kong economy at any time is robust. Far more robust than others in the area.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Hong Kong has minimal geonomics. But as I have explained to you, but it never sinks in, even with a minimal implementation Hong Kong thrives.  Get it?


I get it.  Colorado has minimal fleas. But as I'm going to explain to you, but it won't sink in, _even with minimal flea infestation the dogs and cats in Colorado miraculously thrive!_ 

Get it? 

We could ask if the apparent successes of any thriving economy could be attributed to anything that resembles LVT, however minimally implemented, or we could just as easily ask whether any thriving economy owes part of its success to _how minimally LVT was implemented_, then ultimately minimized or done away with entirely.  

Get it?  

You have LVT fever so badly that you naturally think of it as a magical virus that profoundly affects anything it is sneezed at in only the most positive and far-reaching ways. The apparent success of anything LVT even touches is automatically credited 100% to LVT (or leaseholds in the case of Hong Kong). Forget that many of these so-called "success" stories relate to major financial centers, like Johannesburg, Hong Kong and Kiaochow, the primary industries of which do not depend upon "good" land, but rather low taxation on financial sector services specifically).

Get it?

----------


## Zippyjuan

How is Hong Kong doing today? Kicking butt compared to other non- LVT countries in the global economic crisis? 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...est-since-2009



> Second-quarter gross domestic product rose 1.2 percent from a year earlier, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of 15 economists ahead of data due today. Expansion was 0.4 percent in the first quarter, down from 3 percent in the previous three months and 4.4 percent in the third quarter. 
> 
> *The stalling economy* adds to the challenges facing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who took office on July 1 vowing to build a more equitable society as the territory’s wealth gap widened to a record*. Thousands of residents have taken to the streets to demand higher minimum wages*, direct leadership elections by 2017 and a halt to plans for “patriotic” education in primary schools. 
> 
> *“It’s likely that economic growth will still be as weak as, or even worse than, last quarter*,” said Kevin Lai, a Hong Kong- based economist at Daiwa Capital Markets Ltd., whose forecast for 0.5 percent expansion is the second lowest. “One, and perhaps the only, way to bolster the economy is investment in infrastructure but I haven’t seen any increase coming there. What we need to hope for is a rebound in the global economy.” 
> 
> Hong Kong’s expansion in the first quarter was *the lowest since growth resumed in the last three months of 2009* and compared with a 7.6 percent pace in the first quarter of 2011. 
> 
> Growth Review 
> ...


How does their 1.2% growth compare to US growth for the second quarter? 
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8780D020120809



> Immediately after the trade report, economists forecast the initial second-quarter U.S. GDP growth estimate would be revised to as high as 2.2 percent, but tempered those predictions after a later report showed a decline in wholesale inventories in June.
> 
> Second-quarter growth is now seen revised up to an annual pace of at least 1.8 percent from 1.5 percent. The government will publish its second GDP estimate later this month.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Hong Kong would have disappeared in the financial tsunami only for taxing land.

Hong Kong is a gateway to China. HK is not at a natural international trade crossroads like Singapore is.  Yet it is still one of the world's most important trading cities - because taxing land meant favorable economic conditions for companies to set up.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Hong Kong would have disappeared in the financial tsunami only for taxing land.


Wow, omniscient, are we? Did Clarence the angel give you a glimpse of what life in Hong Kong would have been like with private landownership and without leaseholds? Was it every bit the desolate, decadent PotterSomaliaville you imagined it would be, and did you help Clarence get another set of wings?

----------


## idiom

> Hong Kong is a gateway to China. HK is not at a natural international trade crossroads like Singapore is.


Both of those sentences were written by you, next to each other. Which one do you agree with?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Both of those sentences were written by you, next to each other. Which one do you agree with?


Boy you are slow.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Wow, omniscient, are we? Did Clarence the angel give you a glimpse of what life in Hong Kong would have been like with private landownership and without leaseholds? Was it every bit the desolate, decadent PotterSomaliaville you imagined it would be, and did you help Clarence get another set of wings?


Amazing.  More inane ramblings with no content whatsoever.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Taxes in Hong Kong have helped its growth- but LVT is not the primary reason. 
http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/hongkong/jhktax.html



> Many countries consider Hong Kong an 'offshore' jurisdiction; the attitude of the government however is that the territory is not an offshore centre in the traditional sense of the word but rather a low tax area which levies tax according to the territorial principle. The tax laws of Hong Kong are extremely simple compared to other onshore jurisdictions and the fiscal advantages of operating there could be summarized as follows: 
> • Tax rates are extremely low by OECD standards. (See below for further details). Taxation case law is minimal since the low tax rate means that the costs associated with challenging a decision of the revenue authorities usually outweigh any monetary gain.
> •Taxes are levied according to the "territorial principle" meaning that taxes are only levied on income "derived from or arising in" Hong Kong and not on income sourced outside the Territory.
> • A number of taxes that exist in most jurisdictions do not exist in Hong Kong. Thus there are no capital gains taxes, no withholding taxes, no sales taxes, no VAT, no annual net worth taxes and no accumulated earnings taxes on companies which retain earnings rather than distribute them. In the long term it is intended to completely phase out stamp duty on the sale and issue of shares and securities and to reduce direct taxes further.


Propterty taxes in Hong Kong :
http://www.batgung.com/hktaxes



> How do property taxes work in Hong Kong? Who exactly pays the property taxes when I buy or rent a flat or other home?
> 
> Mr T replies: Property taxes here are known as 'Government Rates'. They are *irritatingly expensive,* but not extortionate. According to the Inland Revenue webpage, *you pay 16% a year of your property's 'net assessable value'.* How this is calculated is a bit obscure; I'll over-simplify it and say that you pay about 16% of the amount you could get in rent for your property in a year. Just keep in mind that you're not assessed according to your flat's market sale value. From my experience, it seems you don't end up having to pay quite as much as the definition from the Inland Revenue suggests.
> 
> If you're renting, you'll often find the phrase 'rates included' in ads for rental properties, but you'll have to pay them if the landlord doesn't (this is something for flat-hunters should always check).
> 
> Odaiwai adds: Just to clarify a little further -- the rates will usually be several thousand Hong Kong dollars a year, payable quarterly.


That 16% rate would be considerably higher than property tax rates in the United States. The highest average property tax rates are in Texas- and even theirs are only about 2.5%.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...ptaxrates.html

Article from 2010:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...omebuyers.html



> *Hong Kong Property Sales Slide 83% as Higher Tax Deters Weekend Homebuyers*
> 
> Weekend sales of used homes fell 83 percent from the previous week, according to data from Centaline Property Agency Ltd. The changes mean homes sold within six months of purchase incur a 15 percent stamp duty, while down payments will rise to 50 percent for properties costing HK$12 million or more, and to 40 percent for those between HK$8 million and HK$12 million. 
> 
> “The measures will likely have the biggest and most lasting impact on property prices seen to date,” Donna Kwok, a Hong Kong-based economist at HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a report. “Hong Kong has jumped onto the bandwagon of Asian central banks and is erecting its own defenses to fend off the flood” of capital from the U.S. easing, she said. 
> 
> Hong Kong’s *currency peg to the dollar* prevents its de- facto central bank from raising interest rates to deter speculation. South Korea revived a tax on foreigners investing in its bonds last week, while Brazil tripled a tax on purchases of local fixed-income assets by overseas investors.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Let's apply the Hong Kong property tax rules to the US. Say you have a condo which could rent for $1000 a month.  Taxes would add $160 a month to that (even if you are renting) so you would have to pay $480 to the government every three months or $1920 a year.

And since that applies to the " rental value" and not the purchase price, you could find yourself taxed out of a home if you bought a long time ago and rental rates rose a lot around you.  In the US that can still happen with property taxes in some states where property is valued not at what you paid (and could afford at the time) but on what they are selling for now.  I live in California where that does not happen- property value only gets stepped up when the property gets resold. I will still pay property taxes after I get the home paid for, but they cannot rise exorbinately to what I cannot afford and am forced to sell.

----------


## devil21

"We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."  

I think that was the motto in the USSR.

----------


## idiom

> Boy you are slow.


That answers the question how?




> Hong Kong is a gateway to China. HK is not at a natural international trade crossroads like Singapore is.


Both of those sentences were written by you, next to each other. Which one do you agree with?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Let's apply the Hong Kong property tax rules to the US. Say you have a condo which could rent for $1000 a month.  Taxes would add $160 a month to that


LVT is geared to the rental value of the property. Which may be a different value to the place in the next street or district.

LVT restricts opportunist renters who do nothing and use property as a do nothing side-line. Only those who know the property business and manage it well will get involved as they known how to make a profit. LVT will put more land and homes into private ownership as the get-rich-quick types sell up. Land prices will not ratchet up inexplicably to most of the population. Land will stabilize with no boom & busts.

Hong Kong could do a lot more to caputure land values - they do not do enough. They should also not do deals with shark land operators.




> you could find yourself taxed out of a home


Inane nonsense, showing a clear misunderstanding of geonomics and LVT.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Both of those sentences were written by you, next to each other. Which one do you agree with?


Boy you are slow.

----------


## Working Poor

I hear that China has a 6% unemployment rate..........

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by idiom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by EcoWarrier
> ...


Actually, slow would be writing something as blitheringly uninformed as:

Hong Kong is a gateway to China. 
Hong Kong is not at a natural international trade crossroads like Singapore is.

The first statement would be irrelevant, were you not trying to make it a limiting statement, one that constrained Hong Kong as "just a gateway", as if it was just a front office economic liaison for China.  That's what made it stupid.   Your second statement couldn't have been more ridiculous. Hong Kong has been a major international financial hub, not to mention "major international trade crossroads", thanks mainly to the British, since long before the lease expired.  




> *Hong Kong the top financial center*
> Posted by: CNN Producer, Paul Armstrong
> 
> HONG KONG (CNN) - Hong Kong has leapfrogged the United States and the United Kingdom to take top spot in the World Economic Forums 2011 index of financial market development - the first Asian financial center to do so.
> 
> According to the forums fourth annual Financial Development Report, Hong Kongs position was bolstered by strong scores in non-banking financial services such as IPO activity - the first public sale of stock by a company - and insurance.
> 
> The report ranks 60 of the words leading financial systems according to more than 100 variables, from access to different forms of capital and financial services, to financial stability, regulation and the availability of skilled workers.
> 
> ...


You might want to go get some more updated blocks.

----------


## idiom

> LVT is geared to the rental value of the property. Which may be a different value to the place in the next street or district.


Rental value is tied nearly entirely to improvements. The market for renting bare land is pretty small. Pure land values should be pretty even from one street to the next.

Unless of course you were planning on taking improvements into account with your tax-shift that doesn't take improvements into account...

----------


## Carson

> "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."  
> 
> I think that was the motto in the USSR.



That is a keeper!

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Rental value is tied nearly entirely to improvements. The market for renting bare land is pretty small. Pure land values should be pretty even from one street to the next.


"Rental value is tied nearly entirely to improvements". That is nonsense. Location, location, location.  Land in Manhattan with a shambles of a building on it, rents for more than a brand new building of the same size on the outskirts of Birmingham Alabama.  Demand for renting bare land that gives economic gain or advantage is high. How many vacant lots is there in the centre of NY? If there was one, they would be lining up to rent the land and build on it.

LVT is geared to the rental values of LAND not improvements.

Keep going, you may get there eventually.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Hong Kong is a gateway to China. 
> Hong Kong is not at a natural international trade crossroads like Singapore is.


Boy you are slow. Look at a map. Under Communism Hong Kong was a gateway to China for the rest of the world. It still is despite China opening up.

"Hong Kong is not at a natural international trade crossroads like Singapore is". *Pay attention at the back!* That is self explanatory. Again look at a map and see the locations of both. 

Thank you for posting this below. This is encouraging from you. It shows the effect taxing land has on Hong Kong and Singapore, catapulting these two to world-class fianacial players.  Production and trade is penalized less in these places. Incidently half of the countries are British Commonwealth or ex empire countries with three out of the five using LVT in some form.




> The report ranks 60 of the word’s leading financial systems according to more than 100 variables, from access to different forms of capital and financial services, to financial stability, regulation and the availability of skilled workers.
> 
> Top 10
> 
> *1. Hong Kong*
> 2. United States
> 3. United Kingdom
> *4. Singapore*
> 5. Australia
> ...


You may get there in time.  Keep going.

----------


## idiom

> "Rental value is tied nearly entirely to improvements". That is nonsense. Location, location, location.  Land in Manhattan with a shambles of a building on it, rents for more than a brand new building of the same size on the outskirts of Birmingham Alabama.  Demand for renting bare land that gives economic gain or advantage is high. How many vacant lots is there in the centre of NY? If there was one, they would be lining up to rent the land and build on it.
> 
> LVT is geared to the rental values of LAND not improvements.
> 
> Keep going, you may get there eventually.


How is that rents inside down-town Manhattan vary so greatly then? Surely the land they are on is comparable? Even on the same plot of land rents vary greatly.

How can rates vary so greatly on one plot of land if the land value is the primary factor?

----------


## idiom

> Thank you for posting this below. This is encouraging from you. It shows the effect taxing land has on Hong Kong and Singapore, catapulting these two to world-class fianacial players.  Production and trade is penalized less in these places. 
> 
> You may get there in time.  Keep going.


LVT doesn't affect trade, because the resources used come from other regions where LVT is not enforced.

On the other hand production, which is affected by LVT, has almost entirely fled both Islands leaving them bubble economies just as classical economics predicts.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The report ranks 60 of the words leading financial systems according to more than 100 variables, from access to different forms of capital and financial services, to financial stability, regulation and the availability of skilled workers.
> 
> Top 10
> 
> 1. *Hong Kong*
> 2. United States
> 3. United Kingdom
> 4. *Singapore*
> 5. Australia
> ...


Actually, it illustrates nicely just how completely lost in your Geonomics panacea naivete you really are.  Through the magic of your myopic LVT fantasy lens, you see a list of top international finance centers, immediately cherry-pick two of them, and jump to a _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ Non Sequitur fallacy as you conclude that their order on the list is solely attributable, not just to tax policy, but tax policy as it relates to land! 

Well, here's another list, along with an equally relevant conclusion:

1. *Carlos Slim (Mexico)* - $74 billion, telecommunications (*Bentley Continental Flying Spur*)
2. Bill Gates (USA) - $56 billion, Microsoft (*Porsche 959 Coupe*)
3. Warren Buffett (USA) - $50 billion, Berkshire Hathaway (*Cadillac DTS*)
4. *Bernard Arnault (France)* - $41 billion, LVMH (*BMW 7-series*)
5. Larry Ellison (USA) - $39.5 billion, Oracle Corp (*McLaren F1*)
6. Lakshmi Mittal (India) - $31.1 billion, steel  (*Super Luxury RV*)
7. Amancio Ortega (Spain) - $31 billion, retail (*Audi A8*)
8. Eike Batista (Brazil) - $30 billion, mining, oil (*Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren*) 
9. Mukesh Ambani (India) - $27 billion, petrochemicals, oil and gas (*Maybach*)
10. Christy Walton & family (USA) - $26.5 billion, Wal-Mart  (*2006 Ford F-150 King Ranch*) 
11. Ingvard Kamprad (Sweden) - $26 billion, Ikea (*1993 Volvo 240*)

This list shows the effect that car choices had on Carlos Slim and Bernard Arnault. Note the choices of the relatively poor Christy Walton and Ingvard Kamprad, the poor fools.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Actually, it illustrates nicely


The list indicatas nicely the effects of taxing land values. The message must be sinking in somewhere.

< snip drivel about cars >

----------


## EcoWarrier

> LVT doesn't affect trade,


 This has been explained to you. The example of Denmark's enterprise expansion under LVT has also been given. LVT reduces, or eliminates: 

*Income Tax -* which penalizes production.*Sales Taxes -* a transaction tax, which penalizes trade.

Hence why in societies where LVT is implemented it works briliantly in promoting enterprise.

LVT also reduces the possiblity of free-loaders.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> How is that rents inside down-town Manhattan vary so greatly then? Surely the land they are on is comparable? Even on the same plot of land rents vary greatly.
> 
> How can rates vary so greatly on one plot of land if the land value is the primary factor?


The landowner of identical plots of land next to each other can command the same rent whether a 100 floor building is on it and the next plot has only a 2 floor building on it. This is assuming the plot with the 2 floor building has planning permission to build a 100 floor building.  

Planning permission is granted by the community's agents in local government. An action by the community in granting planning perission raises the values of land - a decision made by the community who realistically created that greater land value by their actions - the landowner never made the land value.

Look at the "building" prices in prime Manhattan and then split the land price (LAND) from the building (CAPITAL).

----------


## idiom

> This has been explained to you. The example of Denmark's enterprise expansion under LVT has also been given. LVT reduces, or eliminates: 
> 
> *Income Tax -* which penalizes production.*Sales Taxes -* a transaction tax, which penalizes trade.
> 
> Hence why in societies where LVT is implemented it works briliantly in promoting enterprise.


Explain to me again why the economies you use as examples are so light on industry if LVT is so good at promoting industry instead of bubbles?

Income tax penalizes profit, not production.

Taxes on using resources penalizes anything that uses resources.




> LVT also reduces the possiblity of free-loaders


I love this bit. *for certain values of free loading.

Anybody not consuming resources in a significant way get paid by the people who are using resources for industry so they don't have to free-load.

"Its all those hardworking people that are the problem... if only we could stop them freeloading..." said every freeloader ever.

----------


## idiom

> The landowner of identical plots of land next to each other can command the same rent whether a 100 floor building is on it and the next plot has only a 2 floor building on it. This is assuming the plot with the 2 floor building has planning permission to build a 100 floor building.  
> 
> Planning permission is granted by the community's agents in local government. An action by the community in granting planning perission raises the values of land - a decision made by the community who realistically created that greater land value by their actions - the landowner never made the land value.
> 
> Look at the "building" prices in prime Manhattan and then split the land price (LAND) from the building (CAPITAL).


Remember the part where the land value was the primary part of rent? You were the one claiming that proximal pieces of land command different rents without referencing any improvements.

You seem to have gone back on that entirely.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Remember the part where the land value was the primary part of rent? You were the one claiming that proximal pieces of land command different rents without referencing any improvements.
> 
> You seem to have gone back on that entirely.


*Pay attention at the back!!!*  I have not in any way.  Please re-read.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Explain to me again why the economies you use as examples are so light on industry if LVT is so good at promoting industry instead of bubbles?


Denmark was not light on industry.  It is best you read and try to understand the following... 



*Geonomics Proven To Work*

Denmark prospered under the Geoist system for 3 years until right-wing vested interest of landowners scupperred it. Geonomics were imposed for three years but the diminishing after-effects were seen for approximately another four years.

The Danes, by old tradition, have been accustomed to the concept that the land belongs to the people. The rapid industrialisation and land enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries, begun in England and made impact in Denmark challenging this tradition. More land was seized as industrialisation grew in Denmark.

*Liberals Adopt LVT*

Farmers were pressed in the later half of the 19th century; many of them found support in the ideas contained in a newly released book "Progress and Poverty", by Henry George. As the economic situation became even tougher for small farmers, a so called "Georgist" movement began and the Danish Henry George Union was founded in 1902. Some of its more active members wanted a better platform for their political ambitions, and these members cooperated with other philosophic groups and public leaders in forming the Radical Left Wing Party (Liberals), declaring that:
*Land value taxation, LVT, (site revenue) should collect all the publicly created rent of land for government expenses,Income Tax to be abolished accelerating the free market*
Around this time of course, Karl Marx was advocating that the workers unite to fight the desperate conditions of the working man as a grinding poverty level was created in the fall-out of the Industrial Revolution. The Danes took the line of American Henry George who was also concerned at seeing that such a level of poverty existed in an age of rapid technological and mass production advancements.  George's solution was different to Marx. Social Democrats were inspired by George advocating in its political program the taxation of land value, know as Site Revenue.

*Parties join to create the Economic Justice Party* 

Over the next fifty years, not only in Denmark but around the world, there was long and intense debate about liberty and freedom; amongst free traders, pacifists, humanists, philosophers and religious institutions alike. Many of these people went to each other's meetings and contributed articles to each other's publications. Finally, they knew each other so well, that many of them decided to establish a union with the object of appealing to voters for seats in Parliament. The Justice Party was formed. 

The economic policy of the Justice Party was simple; to collect tax only from the _value_ of land and abolish all taxes on labour and capital. For a new political party, their effect was astonishing. Progress was quick and in 1952, they won 12 seats of a possible 179. They effected the appointment of a Government commission for ground rent in Denmark, who wrote its report clearly advocating the benefits of site revenue. In 1957 the Justice Party, together with the Social Democrats (Labour) and the Radical Left Wing Party (Liberals) formed what was to become the most prosperous ever Danish Government - later termed the Ground Rent Government.

Three political parties made an agreement based upon the following:
Collection taxes from the values of land only (LVT)Liberalisation of tradeA tax freeze
It was therefore generally expected that after formation of the government, some kind of LVT would be introduced. Land speculation ceased immediately in anticipation of LVT. Legislation on taxation of increased land value was prepared, presented to parliament and passed.

The economic effects of the cessation of land speculation were astounding and aroused much attention. On the 2nd October, 1960, the New York Times headlined, "_Big Lesson from a Small Nation_."

Prior to the election of 1957, Denmark had a sizable deficit on her balance of payments, was considerably in debt abroad, and burdened with a relatively high interest rate, big unemployment figures and an annual rate of inflation of approximately 5%.

From 1957 to 1960, the following improvements took place:
The big deficit on her balance of payments was turned into a surplus.Denmark's total debts abroad amounting to 1,600 million kr. were reduced to one quarter of this, about 400 million kr.The rate of interest, and hence mortgage levels dropped.Unemployment was soon replaced by almost full employment, together with considerable increases in production and wages.Inflation was brought to a standstill. All wage increases were real wage increases, the highest ever in Denmark.No other taxes were levied during this period. (except one, referred to later.)The time was free of strikes. Industrial production went up 32%,*investment rose 135%*Savings increased immensely, as once again it became profitable to accumulate savings.

After three years in power, Denmark had no foreign debt, no inflation and an unemployment level of 1%, considered full employment. So why is this not continuing?
Until 1960, the Social Democrats were advocating the LVT for the purposes of government social responsibilities, the Radicals and Justice Party advocated LVT for the purposes of income tax reduction. Minor conflict developed.Prior to 1960, "Georgist" beliefs dictated that when a heavy "tax" is levied upon land value, land price will decrease. The consequences of full employment, no inflation, no foreign debt, increasing production and rising real wages however, brought about a prodigious demand for homes, enterprises and of course land. Land prices did not initially fall, as was predicted. In fact land prices rose. The Justice Party was unprepared for this.In the late fifties, the Danish foreign debt was seen to be at crisis level. To assist with this, the Ground Rent Government did levy one new income tax. In addition to this of course, rising real incomes were eroded in part with the progressive nature of income tax on higher incomes. The self interested wealthy land owners had a field day confusing the fact that overall, taxes did go down by 10%. The general public found little reason to doubt the anti-Georgist literature stating that LVT was simply another tax on top of all the other taxes. The land owners had no problem in fanning the now growing belief that the "socialists", (read communists, given the Cold War era), wanted to get hold of your property.

At the general election of 1960, the opposition used, for the time, the largest sum ever in any Danish election campaign, financed by the Conservatives and Landowner associations. Such is the power of self-interested groups. With its limited financial resources and lacking support from the daily press, the Justice Party was unable to withstand the attacks. Agitation against the LVT legislation continued after the election and the new, weakened government gave in. Further strong pressure from land-owner associations had the LVT laws repealed in 1964.

After 1964:
The currency surplus became a currency deficit.The annual deficit on the balance of payments in 1972 was 3 billion kr.Debts abroad amount today to 20,000 million kr.The effective rate of interest has been doubled.Land prices jumped sky-high. Denmark's overall land value rose from 17 billion kr. at the assessment of 1960 to 67 billion in 1969, and reached 100 billion at the next assessment in 1973.Rents in new housing are six fold those of 1964.The rate of inflation rose from barely 1 per cent to 5-7 per cent and was 8.6 per cent in 1965, the year after repeal of the land tax law in 1964.Taxes have risen again and again and are today five times higher.

A comparison between the three periods, before, during and after the so-called "Ground Rent Government," gives a clear picture of the importance of eliminating land speculation. LVT can do that painlessly.

The failure of the Justice Party was a naïve underestimation of the facts that: 
*Population were not educated to what LVT was -* Only few Danes knew what LVT was all about, most people did not know the good effects they already enjoyed because of LVT and that the possibilities of citizens in general would improve further when more LVT would be levied; people in general did not understand that the revenue of LVT belonged to them all in common.*Landowners & Self-Interest Groups Oppose -* The extremely powerful opposing powers dominating the public media - electronic and printed, which imposed on people in general the understanding that LVT was a tax like all other taxes, that it would be unjust if only landowners should pay all taxes, etc. Further they emphasized that poor citizens having no income or only small income would not take advantage of reduction of income taxes, which was crucial because many LVT proponents promised reduced income tax when LVT was publicly collected.

----------


## Todd

> 0 Friends 
> 
> EcoWarrier has not made any friends yet

----------


## EcoWarrier

> 


Do you have anything sensible to say?

----------


## idiom

> *Pay attention at the back!!!*  I have not in any way.  Please re-read.


So the land value isn't the primary determinant of market rents?

----------


## idiom

> Denmark was not light on industry.  It is best you read and try to understand the following...


You were referring to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. All three economies had their industries flee after sustained LVT.

Denmark, according to your post, didn't have LVT long enough for it to demolish all industry.

Countries which currently have LVT or an LVT like regime have Industrial sectors making up less than 10% of the economy.

Denmark, which escaped from LVT in the mid '60s, now has an industrial sector making up more than 30% of the economy.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You were referring to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. All three economies had their industries flee after sustained LVT.


Oh my God!. It is like talking to children.  Hong Kong and Singapore were small trading outposts set up by the British. Not manufacturing places. Taiwan was a bunch of paddy fields until LVT and now is a major maker of high tech goods and a world-class leader in high tech innovation.

Geonomics encourages production and industry by mainatining a free-market and not penalizing it via taxation.

Read the piece on Denmark again. Move your lips if you like.

----------


## idiom

> Oh my God!. It is like talking to children.  Hong Kong and Singapore were small trading outposts set up by the British. Not manufacturing places. Taiwan was a bunch of paddy fields until LVT and now is a major maker of high tech goods and a world-class leader in high tech innovation.
> 
> Geonomics encourages production and industry by mainatining a free-market and not penalizing it via taxation.
> 
> Read the piece on Denmark again. Move your lips if you like.


Taiwan has less than 10% of its economy involved in Industry. Do you have any examples of LVT based governments with high industrial participation? Taiwan did have a number of crash programs implemented by a Stalin-esque government to build industry that was later hampered by LVT. LVT is correctly credited with making the KMT one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

LVT is like a mall. The Government/mall owner invests heavily in the environment to greater an area of concentrated economic activity and thereby is able to charge exorbitant rents.

LVT fails to realise that:

A) There is no industry taking place within a mall. It can't afford the rent.
B) The anchor tenants, the ones doing the heavy economic lifting, get massive discounts on rent.
C) The Rent is paid by shoppers in the end, not by the stores.




> Geonomics encourages production and industry by mainatining a free-market and not penalizing it via taxation.


This sentence is just illuminating. Geonomics does not have a monopoly on low taxation or low regulation. If *all* taxation in the US was replaced with LVT now, LVT would still extract $6 Trillion per year. The trade barrier would be exactly the same. The rules on business would be exactly the same.

Except that $6 Trillion dollar tax burden would now be placed only on those using resources, basically manufacturers and farmers. A company like Goldman Sachs that needs only enough land to build an office tower on would move to a wasteland and pay almost no tax at all.

LVT does nothing to promote trade or free markets or to lower taxation. It is a tax-shift and nothing more. All it does it punish people taking up space.

LVT also want to have only one mall.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Taiwan has less than 10% of its economy involved in Industry.


Taiwan has little in the service sector. High tech industry, not heavy industry.

< snip misinformed stuff showing little understanding >

Geonomics does have a monopoly on low taxation, it only:

*Taxes wealth commonly created* *Charges for usage of common wealth* *Extraction of resources that are common wealth*

Companies and individuals are not fianacially penalised.The productive are not financially penalised.Trade is not financially penalized.LVT is NOT a barrier to trade, doing the opposite, encouraging trade.

Anyone with a functioning brain looking at Geonomics can see the above.

It is best at least you try and understand Geonomics, instead of thinking you are clever.  All implementations have been successful. Look at Denmark again.  Amazing success.

Get this extreme Liberetarian nonsense from your head that you can go it alone.

You have to stop making things up.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> < snip misinformed stuff showing little understanding >


You snipped some insightful, well-informed, completely valid criticisms for which you had no answers, no meaningful rebuttals, no interest in argument, dialogue or cross-examination, so that you could get past your ignorant dismissal and back to prattling on with your usual cut and paste bull$#@!, like a petulant child pretending to the role of teacher and holding court.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You snipped some insightful, well-informed, completely valid criticisms for which you had no answers,


Absolute pedantic nonsense. I am going around in circles with him. He is not that bright that is clear. He, like, need to understand something so simple.  Look at this silly statement.. *C) The Rent is paid by shoppers in the end, not by the stores*.  The rent is paid by the landowners. He, and you, have continually been told this. Land Value Tax taxes LAND by its VALUE - would you believe !!!!  Duh!!!!  Around, around the mulberry bush. 

He was also prattling about that a tax on extracting land's natural resources would be a burden on industry.  Well as they would not be paying Corporation tax that is impossible - but the big picture goes over your heads.

Again, some of the most dynamic financial regimes in the world use LVT - thank you for the data.  That is no coincidence.

How is your friend Norman?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Absolute pedantic nonsense. I am going around in circles with him.


No, the other way around, as you chase your own tail.  




> He is not that bright that is clear. He, like, need to understand something so simple.


Do he?




> Look at this silly statement.. *C) The Rent is paid by shoppers in the end, not by the stores*.  The rent is paid by the landowners.


Your confusion comes from a not-so-bright lack of understanding of his claim that ordinary people end up being the only "landowner shoppers" in the mall.  Look away from your LVT flip cards and baby blocks, it's not written or stamped onto any of those. 




> He, and you, have continually been told this. Land Value Tax taxes LAND by its VALUE - would you believe !!!!  Duh!!!!  Around, around the mulberry bush.


And you have been continuously told, among other simple facts, that Land Value Tax only uses land value as the BASIS for the tax, which means that the tax itself can be absolutely anything at all.  It can be 90% of land value, 100% of land value, and, if it's a single tax, it can even be levied at 1,000% of land value.   Land value only determines the proportion paid by each, not the multiplier used. And Roy's PERSONAL proposal for a individual exemption -- that's not LVT, that's his personal proposal for a UIE, which may not even apply.  The fact that you may not like it, or that Roy might not consider that "properly implemented LVT" is meaningless and irrelevant. 

The point that was made, but did not compute because it's not on any of your _LVT From Dummies_ propaganda tracts and leaflets, is that if there is capital flight of industry due to LVT, and flight to wastelands by commercial interests that don't rely on valuable land to exist and function, and anchor tenants end up with massive discounts, abatements, exemptions, etc., LVT remains the only tax available to the state, who's left to pay the rents?  




> A) There is no industry taking place within a mall. It can't afford the rent.
> B) The anchor tenants, the ones doing the heavy economic lifting, get massive discounts on rent.
> C) The Rent is paid by shoppers in the end, not by the stores.


That's all very straightforward, very real world, but you didn't even get the fact that the "shoppers" in the ("GOVERNMENT LAND MALL") are the people themselves; the only ones largely incapable of escaping the tax in the first place. They are the "LANDOWNERS" who end up bearing the brunt of the LVT burden, no differently than they already do _with any other tax_. 




> He was also prattling about that a tax on extracting land's natural resources would be a burden on industry.  Well as they would not be paying Corporation tax that is impossible - but the big picture goes over your heads.


It looks to me like anything not on your flip cards is completely over your head.  You're going on sheer blind (really blind) religious faith in your overly-simplistic panacea.  If the LVT Babble told you so, then that's the way it is, and taint no two ways about it.  And if there is anything anywhere on Earth that appears to be a tax on land value, you are at the ready, trying to give LVT credit for any and all apparent successes, as if LVT was the cause. 

Case in point:




> Again, some of the most dynamic financial regimes in the world use LVT - thank you for the data.  That is no coincidence.


I rest my case. 




> How is your friend Norman?


He's doing very well, thanks for asking.

----------


## idiom

> Absolute pedantic nonsense.
> *C) The Rent is paid by shoppers in the end, not by the stores*.  
> The rent is paid by the landowners.


Where do the landowners get the money to pay the rent?

Simpler version, where do shop owners in a mall get the money to pay the Mall owner?

You also ignored the problem of what LVT supporters actually want to do which is the main problem in Taiwan which has had it the longest. Instead of having millions of landowners in a country, LVT wants to have one landowner. Or zero competition for land rent rates. Giving a monopoly on power to a single land owner inevitably has this effect:




> Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft.


The refusal of LVT proponents to address this point must lead one to believe that this is their goal. The opposite of what they claim. They don't want to get rid of landlords, they want to be *the* one and only landlord.

----------


## Len Larson

Hat-Tip to Steven and idiom for having the patience to deal with this nonsense. I learned a few things too. Arguments will be honed.

----------


## Danan

> Hat-Tip to Steven and idiom for having the patience to deal with this nonsense.


I completely agree. Admirable endurance.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I completely agree. Admirable endurance.


Location: Austria.

That says it all.

You can write something sensible if you like instead of noise postings.




> I completely agree.


You can write something sensible if you like instead of noise postings.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> No, the other way around, as you chase your own tail.


I know *exactly* what I am on about. I fully understand it. You and the other freeloaders can't see further than your own political indoctrination.  The indoctrination is so bad you can't see what is good for yourself.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Where do the landowners get the money to pay the rent?
> Simpler version, where do shop owners in a mall get the money to pay the Mall owner?


By enterprise, which the landowner shows nothing off.




> Instead of having millions of landowners in a country, LVT wants to have one landowner.


Idiot, Idiom or whatever, you have been told countless times, LVT is not government ownership of land. It is tax shift.  But you are not that bright so I do take that into account.

You never read it all did you?  If you did you never understood.  
http://www.progress.org/jstaiwan.htm

Jeff Smith went to Taiwan to gives talks on greater implementation of Geonomics. 

It have left in the part you left out...




> Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft. *Usually, where governments are this corrupt, the people are impoverished. But not the Taiwanese. Their per capita income is probably second to Hong Kong's.* Add in their black market income, it's probably much more than anyone else's.


The point Jeff Smith was making, which you could not get, was.....*Even with a corrupt government the people are well off because of LVT.*  Imagine what it would be like with a non-corrupt government?

----------


## Danan

> Where do the landowners get the money to pay the rent?
> 
> Simpler version, where do shop owners in a mall get the money to pay the Mall owner?


They still believe that the supply of land is static and since a totally inelastic supply curve means that the tax incidence only falls upon the supplier, they conclude that this is the case with a LVT.

But the supply curve of land is *not* inelastic, as I've shown already earlier. If the supply is not "static", in the economic sense, then the conclusion that only the landowner pays the tax is not sound.

And if you think about it, it's only logical. Every investor tries to find the highest interest rate for his capital. The yield in every sector of the economy tends to even out in the long run, as capital moves freely. Which means that in the end landlords are going to increase the rent to get the same yield as before. What's stopping them?

If competitors try to undercut them constantly they can invest the capital somewhere else with a higher yield and wait for their competitors to price themselves out of business, just like in every other sector of the economy too.

Actually, the *demand* function for land is way more inelastic than the supply function. I'd guess that the overwhelming portion of the tax were payed by consumers, not landlords.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Location: Austria.
> 
> That says it all.


That only tells you his location, but the fact that you would even type such a thing, that says it all.  Are you really that clueless? Did you think you were preaching your naive, statist, geofascist drivel to an anti-Austrian choir?

----------


## Danan

> Location: Austria.
> 
> That says it all.


Yeah? Would you mind to tell me what exactly it says?




> You can write something sensible if you like instead of noise postings.


Since neither of you geo-marxists rebuted my argument regarding tax incidence yet, I suggest you take your own advice.

There are countless other fallacies involved in your theory too. For instance, you seem to believe that value is objective. It's not. How exactly are you going to tax land on the basis of it's value, when it's value differs from person to person? Are you going to ask the landlord, "We'd like to tax your land. Would you mind telling us how much you believe it's worth to you?"

You realize that the "market price" of a piece of land that is being sold has nothing to do with the value of nearby land and doesn't even tell you very much about the value of the sold land itself. It merely provides you with information regarding the upper boundary for the seller and the lower boundary for the buyer at one specific point in time.

The only people I know who obviously haven't heard about subjective value theory yet are marxists. Well, I guess that fits.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That only tells you his location, but the fact that you would even type such a thing, that says it all.  Are you really that clueless? Did you think you were preaching your naive, statist, geofascist


Do you think I eat babies as well?

I have been to Austria. I know where it is. 

Geofacist?  What a laugh!!!  Geonomics is high in all Green parties. It is high on the UK LibDems agenda. Facists the lot of them I tell you!  Facists! Yep facists.     Duh!

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Since neither of you geo-marxists


This is clear political indoctrination.  There are no reds under the bed any longer.  Did you know?  Washington told you that in the Cold War - and you believed it.

Please read Progress and Poverty by Henry George - one of the biggest selling books ever.  You really need to. Get the later modern English versions.  BTW, I am sure you know sweet nothing of Marx having been brainwashed. But Marx mainly wrote on the Failures of Capitalism.  Which are still valid. Why Marx never goes away. Take a look. I am sure it is above your head, but over 95% of what Marx wrote was about Capitalism's Failures. Have a try.....







> How exactly are you going to tax land on the basis of it's value, when it's value differs from person to person?


My God!  The level of intelligence of these forums is appalling!  The value of land is easy to assess. Ask any Realtor, they will tell you.  Wow.

----------


## Danan

> Do you think I eat babies as well?
> 
> I have been to Austria. I know where it is. 
> 
> Geofacist?  What a laugh!!!  Geonomics is high in all Green parties. It is high on the UK LibDems agenda. Facists the lot of them I tell you!  Facists! Yep facists.     Duh!


There is not a single party that is more communist, statist and fascist then our local Green Party and the same is true for every Green Party in Europe I know of. A buch of lousy, doublespeaking Eco-Marxists who hate individual freedom and the free market with passion and do everything in their power to scrue over capitalism.

So I don't really see how "The Green parties like the idea of a LVT!" is going to help you in a Ron Paul forum to be honest.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> They still believe that the supply of land is static and since a totally inelastic


Are they making more land in Manhattan, central London and central Tokyo?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> There is not a single party that is more communist, statist and fascist then our local Green Party and the same is true for every Green Party in Europe I know of.


The Greens controlled Germany.  You are mad.

----------


## Danan

> This is clear political indiocrination.  There are no reds under the bed any longer.  Did you know?  Washington told you that in the Cold War - and you believed it.
> 
> Please read Progress and Poverty by Henry George - one of the biggest selling books ever.  You really need to. Get the later modern English versions.  BTW, I am sure you know sweet nothing of Marx having been brtainwashed. But Marx mainly wrtote on the Failures of Capitalism.  Which are still valid. Why Marx never goes away. Take a look. I am sure it is above your head, but over 95% of what Marx wrote was about Capitalism's Failures. Have a try.....


The only paragraphs of Marx's work I've read were so laughingly stupid that I couldn't go on. He mainly lists facts and half-facts about various economic conditions and then jumps to totally unrelated conclusions like, "and therefore it's evident that only the rise of the proletariat can ..." without any kind of supporting evidence for that conclusion, and even without describing how in the world he came to the conclusion. And he even admits that and says that the scientific method and the common rules of reason don't apply to his theory, because his ideas describe a brand-new world with a new, proletarian logic and BS like that. It's a giant joke.

In fact, Marx *did* go away. In the economics departments at least. Neo-classical economists are far from perfect, but I have to grant them that I've never met a Marxist yet. Or anyone who said good stuff about him. That's because his theories got destroyed by Böhm-Bawerk, Mises and co.

The areas where Marxists are common are sociology, political science and literature. And that has mainly to do with the folks who chose to study that stuff and their lack of economic knowledge and reasoning abilities.




> My God!  The level of intelligence of these forums is appalling!  The value of land is easy to assess. Ask any realator, they will tell you.  Wow.


Market prices are *NOT* value. Maybe you should learn about real economics first, before you read your obscure literature.

If a piece of land is sold at 100,000.- that means that the buyer valued it at least more than the 100,000,- and the seller valued it less at the time of the transaction. That's the only logical sound conclusion of this action. Value is *subjective*. That's one of the single most important insights of modern economics.

You propose to tax based on estimated market prices. *NOT* on value.

----------


## Danan

> Are they making more land in Manhattan, central London and central Tokyo?


You don't understand what a supply function is.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You don't understand what a supply function is.


I do. You clearly do not. *Land is inelastic in supply PERIOD!*

----------


## Danan

> The Greens controlled Germany.  You are mad.


There are many definitions for fascism. The Greens are radical statists who want to control and regulate all individual behaviour.

Many of them subscribe to the "There are too many people on the world, humankind is a cancer and we need the folks in Africa to stop reproducing"-population controll BS. They also don't like them to have more wealth (for the sake of the planet, officially) and they believe that they are unable to provide for themselves and that they can only survive with foreign aid, even though studies showed that foreign aid does more harm than good. So there may also be subliminal racism, although I agree that on the surface nationalism is not one of their characteristics.

Green activists and associates are also often violent in protests against nuclear waste transports, animal testing, industrial livestock farming, etc. and the officials are often apologetic.

They may not be completely fascist in the classical dictionary definition, but they share some characteristics.

----------


## Danan

> I do. You clearly do not. *Land is inelastic in supply PERIOD!*


So you say that no matter how low or high the price of land is, the amount supplied by landowners will always be the same, in a given period?

Or that in case someone outside the US decided to buy up all the US land for extremely high prices in one year, the amount of land sold in this year will not be higher than if this person didn't do that?

Because that's the economic definition of supply. And you don't seem to understand that. Supply of land does *not* mean "land in existence", it means "amount of land, landowners are willing to sell at price X". You say the amount they are willing to sell has nothing to do with the price. That's delusional.

----------


## EcoWarrier

[SIZE=2]


> There are many definitions for fascism. The Greens are radical statists who want to control and regulate all individual behaviour.


You are still mad.




> So you say that no matter how low or high the price of land is, the amount supplied by landowners will always be the same, in a given period?


Landlords do not supply land, nature does that.

Economic community activity soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values. This is captured to pay for common services.

Geonomics is:

*Using commonly created wealth to pay for common services leaving private income in private pockets. *  That is easy to understand, even for you.  The core is LVT reclaiming community created wealth that soaked into the land, with charges for use of commonwealth such as the electromagnetic spectrum, extraction of commonwealth (resources) from the land and seas and seabed. 

Geoism is easy to understand. People want financial change since the Credit Crunch but have seen none.  They see a lot of hot air nothing else.  They do want change.  They see no change coming.  Geoism is ideal as we all know, and now is the best time for it.

Geoism is an extension of Henry George's approach, who never invented LVT. The basics of Geoism are easy to understand and grabs people easier.  _Using wealth created by all of us to pay the taxes does have appeal_.  The spin-off benefits of LVT in promoting enterprise, reducing government involvement, giving more freedom, preventing harmful land speculation, no boom & bust, etc, although important, are quite secondary in initial understanding.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Are they making more land in Manhattan, central London and central Tokyo?


Note to the guy who thinks we must "urgently" revert to Classical Economics, but obviously does not understand it:

*Economics 101:*  Supply, in economics, is not defined as the total quantity of a thing in existence.  It is, rather, the quantity *that a seller is able and willing* to sell, at a given price, over a given period of time. That's why the "supply" of land is not static, but an ever-fluctuating dynamic - even if LVT was fully implemented.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You don't understand what a supply function is.


He most definitely does not. One of his Rugrats LVT baby blocks has "*Land is inelastic in supply!*" stamped on it in bold letters. He does not elucidate or argue it any further (he just follows it with "Period!"), because he doesn't even know what it means.  That mantra only comes about as geo-nutbags attempt to apply the rules of geonomics as if they already applied equally to land in a perfectly competitive land market.  

Perfectly inelastic supply only means that the quantity (that a seller is able and willing to sell) is *unaffected by any change in price*.  A perfectly inelastic curve focuses, therefore, on quantity, _not price_, because for *any price* the quantity remains fixed.  That is not true of land in a free and perfectly competitive land market, wherein price definitely affects the quantity (parcels) that sellers are able and willing to sell.  Hence, no vertical or inelastic supply. 

But what about a perfectly vertical supply curve?  

A supply curve can only be said to be perfectly vertical when sellers will sell a given quantity _at any price_. That, too, is not true of land in a free and perfectly competitive land market. Landowners do not make all quantities of land available _at any price_. 

A _perfectly inelastic supply_ curve can only exist when sellers have no choice in the valuation of a good. The claim of "inelastic supply" of land made by geocommunists is a form of question begging, because it does not apply to the supply of land in a free and perfectly competitive private land market, but _could, in theory_, apply to a land market wherein the state/collectivist community/hive is seen as "the seller".  Only then could ALL land (in theory at least), be seen as "available" (albeit only for rent) at virtually any (rental) price.  That is because the "seller" in that case is the state only -- the sole monopolistic owner -- with a supply curve, in theory, that could be perfectly vertical, and perfectly inelastic.  But only in that very narrow context.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> He most definitely does not. One of his Rugrats LVT baby blocks has "*Land is inelastic in supply!*"


It is.  They are not making any more of it, unless the earth gets bigger.

< sorry I had to snip the rest as it was inane drivel >

----------


## EcoWarrier

> *Economics 101:*  Supply, in economics, is not defined as the total quantity of a thing in existence.  It is, rather, the quantity *that a seller is able and willing* to sell, at a given price, over a given period of time. That's why the "supply" of land is not static, but an ever-fluctuating dynamic - even if LVT was fully implemented.


Humankind can make as many cars as it likes - the supply is elastic.
Land cannot be made as nature made it. Humankind cannot make more land - the supply is inelastic.

There you are.

----------


## Danan

> It is.  They are not making any more of it, unless the earth gets bigger.


I do not understand why you are not banned already. Maybe for our amusement?

If you redefine the word "supply" so that it fits your understanding of it you can't just apply all the conclusions that follow from the common economic definition of supply, like Steven and I explained it to you. Your argument is therefore not logically valid and just deceptive, as it leads the reader to a wrong conclusion, if he doesn't understand that you don't use the same definition of "supply" like everybody in the economic, academic environment.





> Humankind can make as many cars as it likes - the supply is elastic.
> Land cannot be made as nature made it. Humankind cannot make more land - the supply is inelastic.
> 
> There you are.


That has nothing to do with supply or elasticity. Elasticity of supply describes how much the amount of a good a supplier is willing and able to sell changes, if the price changes for X. Or to put it differently, it describes the slope of the supply curve at a given point.

The potential produced quantity of a good has nothing to do with it's elasticity. You redefine common scientific terms however you see fit. What's the point in having a discussion with you, if we have to ask you the meaning of every word you use?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> < sorry I had to snip the rest as it was inane drivel >


You were forced to snip the rest because your inane drivel would not suffice as an actual argument or rebuttal, and you have nothing to replace it with that would suffice. 

Your assertions have been thoroughly refuted. You have been provided with the economics definition of supply, along with explanations of terms like 'inelastic supply', 'vertical supply curve', which were also explained to you.  That's not Austrian economics. That's basic economics that anyone interested in economics should know.  You didn't have a counter-argument for that, because you lack even a basic understanding of economics -- aside from the little soundbites from baby blocks that you keep repeating.  




> It is.  They are not making any more of it, unless the earth gets bigger.


Production is the other way geonuts attempt to torture logic with regard to supply; by specifically talking about it as if it only applied to "producers", production, and factors of production (versus finished goods).  And yet economic supply is not constrained to manufacturing and production. It has a much broader context, as it deals with the quantity of ANY THING a SELLER (NOT necessarily "PRODUCER/MAKER/MANUFACTURER") is willing to MAKE AVAILABLE (SELL, not necessarily "PRODUCE") to the market at a given price over a given period of time.  

The key word here is SELLER.  Not "producer" (specific subset of seller). Not "maker".  And supply (once again) is not defined as the total of a thing in existence.  That's your geocommunist made-up $#@!.




> Landlords do not supply land, nature does that.


Bull$#@!. Geo-gibberish.  In the economic sense, "nature" does not "supply" anything, because "nature" is not a "seller".  It's not even a "provider" or "giver". Nature is completely passive and neutral in the economic sense, with no regard to abstract anthropomorphic sentiments like "giving", "providing" or "receiving".  

Land = one form, or subset, of "nature". Thus, as a tautology, you are saying in essence, "land supplies land", or "land supplies itself", which is utterly meaningless from an economics perspective. Animals, vegetables and minerals (including land) do not "supply" themselves in the economic sense; nor can these be collectivized and anthropomorphized as "nature" that is doing the supplying or providing of anything.  

In economics, the only SUPPLYING ENTITIES in existence are actual sellers and renters -- _a party that is able and willing to sell, to which payment is due_. The supplier is neither the thing being supplied nor its natural physical source. If you mine or pan for gold, gold is NOT its own supplier, any more than its physical source (a mine, a river, or "nature" in general).  As such, In the case of LVT, the "supplying entity" is THE STATE, NOT NATURE, because the state is the ONLY entity which establishes a remunerative claim in return for "its supply". In the case of private landownership, the supplying entity is the PRIVATE LANDOWNER.

----------


## idiom

Questions was, where does the landowner get the money to pay the LVT...




> By enterprise, which the landowner shows nothing off.


The landowner here is actually the Mall owner which represents the community as a microcosm.

By saying that the community does nothing to promote economic activity you have just refuted your entire thesis.

Remarkable.

----------


## idiom

> *Land is unique and special being completly different from movable objects like machinery, equipment and raw materials*. If the price of cement rises in one location than another the cheaper cement will move to the location where the prices are higher equalising the price of cement (making cement cheaper) - moveable goods and service equalize the price (value).


Land is just a huge hunk of raw materials. Your view is about three thousand years out of date. Any amount of land can be moved anywhere. You clearly don't believe in other planets, in land reclamation, in open pit mining, or that Holland exists...

We actually have the ability to create matter now. We can't generate the energy yet to do that yet. Earth is not even the largest planet in this system. There are countless other planets we are aware of. There are billions of tonnes of asteroids in reach.

'Unique' and 'finite' and 'productive' have definitions quite different from the way you use them.



Land being _made_. Homes and businesses will be on this brand new land. This land will not have been on the market before.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Land is just a huge hunk of raw materials.


You got that right. One we cannot live without.

This one thinks a whole Continent can be created by shifting a sandbank.  Wow.  Can this sandbank be taken to Manhattan and a skyscraper built on?  Like in 42nd St?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The landowner here is actually the Mall owner which represents the community as a microcosm.


The mall owner need not be the landowner.  Many landowers only own land, not buildings.  A mall owner/landowner can be part enterprise (the mall) and part parasite (the landowner).

That is easy to figure out.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Originally Posted by EcoWarrier
> 
> Landlords do not supply land, nature does that. 
> 
> 
> Bull$#@!. Geo-gibberish.  In the economic sense, "nature" does not "supply" anything,


You are clearly mad.

< sorry I had to snip the rest as it was inane drivel >

----------


## idiom

> The mall owner need not be the landowner.  Many landowers only own land, not buildings.  A mall owner/landowner can be part enterprise (the mall) and part parasite (the landowner).
> 
> That is easy to figure out.


So enterprises don't have to pay any tax as long as no one owns the land their buildings are on? This is easier to arrange than you might imagine.

----------


## idiom

LVT is the worst sort of landlord. Lets run the math.

Imagine the US was to shift all of its taxation to LVT tomorrow. What would that look like?

The US has $25T in real estate. 1/3 of that is owned by the government leaving $16.5T for taxation. The government on all tiers needs to extract a total of $6T, or 37% of the total real estate value.

So lets look at an average home worth $300,000. Of that, 1/5 is the average land value ratio. So an average home owner owns $60,000 worth of land. The Government will require the home owner to pay $111,000 in rent, or an LVT rate of %185. That is before the new rent demolishes the land value. When the land value goes down to account for the new rent the rate will have to go up because the government still needs to be paid. So if the land value collapsed to $5000 the LVT rate would simply shoot to 2200%.

So the average home now requires $111,000 in Land Tax per year. The average family has a combined income of $50,000. On the upside they get to keep all of this because they no longer pay income or sales taxes.

_Under pure LVT in the United States, in order to eat, three families must share a house. On the upside they will no longer have to worry about greedy landlords._

----------


## EcoWarrier

> LVT is the worst sort of landlord. Lets run the math.
> 
> Imagine the US was to shift all of its taxation to LVT tomorrow. What would that look like?


In the UK, it was calculated that a man who earned approx $70,000 per ann. would pay about $8,000 less overall in taxes per ann. using LVT, and the government would have more than enough to pay for its services. But the economy would increase with LVT reducing the welfare bill and the LVT would automatically be lower as less will be going out - self regulating by the land values per ann. With the USA it is more difficult to asses as the USA has a state system.  But Pref Mason Gaffey and others calulated that the revenues that could be collected from land resources & usage and land values is astronomical in the USA.  Income & sales and Corporation taxes can be fully eliminated.

The USA is in spiraling debt to the tune of £40,000 per person. Wow! The country could totally financially collapse the way it is going. The UK has bodies at national level advocating LVT with a number of parties having LVT in focus. This apears absent in the US with LVT active in local spheres. Netherless Geoism is big in the USA.

The taxation of land (and property improvements) in the USA is a matter for local government and local school districts.  There may not be a prohibition under the national constitution for, say, a
surtax on the assessed value of land, but there is no political interest in such a measure.

The United States is being pulled into a crisis situation that will dwarf the Great Depression of the 1930s.  Nothing has improved since then. We are drowning in debt, and the current statistics confirm the situation is worsening daily.

Faced with a national crisis, who better to turn to for advice than Winston Churchill? A century ago, the great man advocated introducing a land value tax as part of a bold package of fiscal reforms in the UK. 

Taxing land values would be a fair way to help to plug the budget gap while stabilising - and even boosting - the economy. Land is routinely valued each year as property changes hands. 

Neither tenants nor leaseholders would pay a cent; only freeholders and landlords would, with the owner of a large estate paying a higher rate than someone who owns a small suburban house. The proceeds could be used to cut the deficit and creating jobs, boosting take-home pay and stimulating growth. Over time, the aim would be to shift the tax burden off hard-working families and on to idle landlords - as in Hong Kong, where revenues from land taxes keep income tax low, there is no Sales tax or capital gains tax, and enterprise flourishes.

When the Government taxes successful effort, people strive less - some work less, others don't bother setting up a business, and since hiring is more expensive, fewer jobs are created. But taxing land wouldn't crimp economic activity, as Adam Smith explained in The Wealth of Nations. It wouldn't reduce the supply of land, which can't be spirited away to a tax haven. And it wouldn't push up rents, which depend on what tenants are prepared to pay rather than landlords' expenses.

A land value tax would actually encourage development. Since it would be payable irrespective of how land is used, it would stimulate the regeneration of derelict sites. Infrastructure investment that raises surrounding land values would pay for itself and thus escape short-sighted budget cuts. And unlike property taxes, people who do up their homes would not be penalised. Taxing land values could also limit property bubbles - and the inevitable busts - without discouraging mobility or business investment (unlike interest rate rises). Relaxing planning restrictions would help too. 

The notion that we can all get rich by swapping more or less the same stock of houses at ever more inflated prices is a dangerous delusion. Property speculation diverts funds from productive investment in promising companies - and when the bubble bursts, the economy plunges into recession, home-owners are stranded with huge debts and banks laid low by bad loans seek bailouts from taxpayers. Isn't it time we learnt from our mistakes?

Above all, a land tax would be fair.  These "land monopolists" - as Churchill dubbed them - get richer not through their own efforts, but that of others.  And while landowners would point to the impact on a poor granny in a big house - a bogus argument that Churchill called the "poor widow bogey" - she wouldn't be forced out of her home; her tax bill could be deferred, or she could even be exempted.

Since nearly all of us earn most of our lifetime income from work rather than from rent, taxing land instead of labour would make most people better off. So the question for the Government boils down to this: do you want to help a big society of enterprising people working hard to get ahead - or a tiny elite creaming off the rewards of others' efforts?

< snip made up math figures >

----------


## idiom

> < snip made up math figures >


So... for the majority of Americans... you haven't actually checked the math. You haven't actually thought through how your ideas would affect actual people.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> you haven't actually checked the math.


It was drivel. You made it all up. You must stop making things up. Read what I wrote and understand it, if you can.

Geoism has been implemented around the world to great success.  There is no need to image how it works, or make thinsg up about Geoismas its record speaks for itself.

You must get this freeloading notion out of your head. And get the blinkers off. You must try.

----------


## idiom

> It was drivel. You made it all up. You must stop making things up. Read what I wrote and understand it, if you can.
> 
> Geoism has been implemented around the world to great success.  There is no need to image how it works, or make thinsg up about Geoismas its record speaks for itself.
> 
> You must get this freeloading notion out of your head. And get the blinkers off. You must try.


I didn't bother with citations because the are well known numbers.

Do you have alternate numbers? The Majority of Americans are landowners. The Government spends slightly more than the total land value of the United States every year.

Focusing that tax draw on landowners focuses it on families, not land lords or businesses. It will never work out favourably.

But by all means, feel free to post actual estimates for any number you thought was considerably off. With citations of course.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I didn't bother with citations because the are well known numbers.


Brain of America, you made the numbers up.  

Understand how LVT is calculated and implemented.

----------


## silverhandorder

The problem is not LVT. Eco-warrior you are a socialist. We disagree on every role of government possible. If it was just LVT we could at least work towards minarchism first. But you wouldn't want to give up huge government at all.

----------


## Danan

> The problem is not LVT. Eco-warrior you are a socialist. We disagree on every role of government possible. If it was just LVT we could at least work towards minarchism first. But you wouldn't want to give up huge government at all.


You are right. If the question were if LVT is the least of all possible evils, the whole argument would be entirely different. But he argues that LVT is actually a positive thing. That's ludicrous.

I'd still disagree with it, but the discussion would be much more useful.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You are right. If the question were if LVT is the least of all possible evils, the whole argument would be entirely different. But he argues that LVT is actually a positive thing. That's ludicrous.


You clearly do not understand LVT. If you did you would not come out with such a silly statement.  Geonomics is the ONLY just and free economic system there is.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The problem is not LVT. Eco-warrior you are a socialist.


I am not a socialist. I am a free-marketeer, with a government there to maintain that in ensuring it is not rigged or monopolized. I agree with a Welfare system, such as a National Health System.  Look at Micheal Moore's Sicko. Embarrassing isn't it?




> But you wouldn't want to give up huge government at all.


Geonomics ensures small government.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I am not a socialist.
> I agree with a Welfare system, such as a National Health System.  Look at Micheal Moore's Sicko.


Contradictions? What contradictions? Sounds like a free-marketeer who just wants a government there to ensure it is not rigged or monopolized. lol 

Too rich.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Contradictions? What contradictions? Sounds like a free-marketeer who just wants a government there to ensure it is not rigged or monopolized. lol 
> 
> Too rich.


Steven that is very encouraging coming from you. Keep up the good work. Fantastic.

----------


## EcoWarrier

The British celebrated the NHS in the opening ceremony at the Olympics.  That is people forming the letters in an air shot of the stadium:



Obama take note!!

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I am not a socialist.I agree with a Welfare system, such as a National Health System.Look at Micheal Moore's Sicko.


Priceless. Just wanted to quote it again for all to see, because that is some funny $#@! right there, typed in earnest, with a perfectly straight face.

----------


## Todd

> Contradictions? What contradictions? Sounds like a free-marketeer who just wants a government there to ensure it is not rigged or monopolized. lol 
> 
> Too rich.



Sounds like.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Priceless. Just wanted to quote it again for all to see, because that is some funny $#@! right there, typed in earnest, with a perfectly straight face.


Shocked you eh!  I find it fantastic that you are now learning.  Keep it up Steven.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Shocked you eh!  I find it fantastic that you are now learning.  Keep it up Steven.


Have a nice green leftist, socialist reeducation camp, EcoWarrier(sic). 




> I am not a socialist.I agree with a Welfare system, such as a National Health System.Look at Micheal Moore's Sicko.


Our entire monetary system is going to undergo a catastrophic collapse long before your fantasy, human-enslaving, leftist-socialist pipe dream could ever be realized, even temporarily.  Good luck trying to entitle yourself to someone else's services when that day comes.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who cannot correctly spell his own name.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I find it hard to take anyone seriously who cannot correctly spell his own name.


Yep, its Stephen.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Our entire monetary system is going to undergo a catastrophic collapse long before your fantasy, human-enslaving, leftist-socialist pipe dream could ever be realized, even temporarily.


Steven, what human-enslaving, leftist-socialists are you on about?

----------


## Voluntary Man

are you that stupid, or are you just counting on everyone else being even stupider? i didn't even click your link, because the "prime cuts" (i.e., excerpts) you posted contained ZER0 facts. either you chose to post only the lopsided propaganda bullsh!+, or the whole article is lopsided propaganda bullsh!+. either way, when science cultists frame their arguments with cutesy epithets and logical fallacies, my eyes glaze over. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

----------


## acptulsa

A little something for those who have obviously never seen a genuine leftist.

----------


## DamianTV

Well this thread is definitely a *Blast from the Past*...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> *In communist counties, unemployment is eliminated!*


In Soviet Russia, unemployment eliminates you!

----------


## acptulsa

> Well this thread is definitely a *Blast from the Past*...


I figured if the people trying to be divisive by calling everyone who isn't racist, or culturally exclusionary, or whatever they want to call it, a leftist could stand to see a real leftist.

I doubt it'll improve their behavior, but at least they have no excuse.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I figured if the people trying to be divisive by calling everyone who isn't racist, or culturally exclusionary, or whatever they want to call it, a leftist could stand to see a real leftist.
> 
> I doubt it'll improve their behavior, but at least they have no excuse.


The left is a spectrum, you don't have to be Lenin to be a leftist.

----------


## PAF

> The left is a spectrum, you don't have to be Lenin to be a leftist.



In your opinion, which is worse, a statist or a leftist?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In your opinion, which is worse, a statist or a leftist?


The only leftists that are not statists enable statists so they are both just as bad.

----------


## devil21

Just don't live in those counties.  A neighboring county is rarely more than a 45 minute drive away

----------

