# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

## DamianTV

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/27




> Conservatives force the deficit issue, ignoring job creation, and insisting that tax increases on the rich wouldn't generate enough revenue to balance the budget. They're way off. But it takes a little arithmetic to put it all together. In the following analysis, data has been taken from a variety of sources, some of which may overlap or slightly disagree, but all of which lead to the conclusion that withheld revenue, not excessive spending, is the problem.
> 
> 1. Individual and small business tax avoidance costs us $450 billion.
> 
> The IRS estimates that 17 percent of taxes owed were not paid, leaving an underpayment of $450 billion. In way of confirmation, an independent review of IRS data reveals that the richest 10 percent of Americans paid less than 19% on $3.8 trillion of income in 2006, nearly $450 billion short of a more legitimate 30% tax rate. It has also been estimated that two-thirds of the annual $1.3 trillion in "tax expenditures" (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes) goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. Based on IRS apportionments, this calculates out to more than $450 billion for the richest 10 percent of Americans.
> 
> 2. Corporate tax avoidance is between $250 billion and $500 billion.
> 
> There are numerous examples of tax avoidance by the big companies, but the most outrageous fact may be that corporations decided to drastically cut their tax rates after the start of the recession. After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, they've paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes. Worse yet, it's a $500 billion shortfall from the 35% statutory corporate tax rate.
> ...


Just my two cents, but the Top 1% of this country controls 50% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% of the country controls just 1% of the wealth.  Figures might be a bit off, might be like 2%, but its close enough for Govt work.  So it doesnt matter if the Govt were to take EVERYTHING from us, it is only equivilant of just 1% of what the rich already have!  So how is it they can expect to take more and more blood from us turnips?

Of course the real solution would be to cut the Income Tax period.  The people at the bottom should be able to take their wealth back from the rich because it was effectively stolen from them, and the Theft should be reimbursed!

----------


## ILUVRP

we all know everyone hates fed income tax , but i get sick of the neocon's and fox saying how the top 2-3 % pay over 50% of the fed income taxes.

lets use this example , say i make $10 trillion a year , i pay 10% income tax ( one trillion dollars a year ) , i could say i pay more taxes than all the rest of the american people put together , am i not great .

everyone knows what is happening , the middle class is going away as there is fewer and fewer mfr jobs , look around at the malls and where people are working .

bottom line , the rich and upper income earners will pay more and more as a total of income taxes as the middle class gets smaller .

look at every chart you can find showing the decline of the middle class since the trickle down theory thanks to reagan--kudlow--laffer.

i am 74 years old and can remember when america was great , people growing up now say 35 and under think this is all normal , nothing could be farther from the truth. 

i get sick of hearing our elected people say goverment is too big ( i agree ) , but when is the last time you have seen or heard any of them cut there staff or refuse a pay raise .

----------


## 2young2vote

Paul fails to understand how government works.  When you give them more money they simply spend more.  They don't care at all about the deficit.  Raising taxes will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce the deficit when we have a congress and executive branch that likes to spend huge amounts of money.  This guy assumes that receiving more money will help pay for the budget deficit, but what he doesn't realize is that the BUDGET keeps going up every year.  In a few years that money that he collects now may not be enough to pay for THAT years deficit, so he would then have to raise taxes again.

Then we need to take into account the unintended consequences which is a topic that no liberal or politician likes to talk about.  What is the reason people use tax havens and loopholes in the tax code?  The reason is because they want to save more of the money that they earned.  As soon as they eliminate all of these havens and loopholes (which will never happen) a team of tax specialists and accountants will get together at every major business and determine whether it is more cost effective to stay in the USA or move their headquarters to a different country with lower tax rates.  If they find that one is better for the business then they will go to that one.  Now the USA has lost ALL of that income tax revenue.

Adding up a bunch of numbers and saying "Hey look, if i add these two together and we tax these numbers, then we can pay off the deficit!" does not take into account future consequences and spending levels.  He is using numbers from right now, or in the past, and assuming things will be the same in the future - the liberals biggest problem.  There is a saying and it goes like this "Past performance is not indicative of future results" and it applies in this situation.

----------


## TonySutton

The problem is that if the government found ways to collect all of these taxes, at the same time they would find new programs to fund and NEVER pay off the debt

----------


## erowe1

> The people at the bottom should be able to take their wealth back from the rich because it was effectively stolen from them, and the Theft should be reimbursed!


How do you figure?

----------


## Liberty74

BS. Higher taxes on the rich doesn't work. Look at the high taxed states like CA and others. They have massive deficits. Look at all the European countries that have extremely high taxes on the rich and the middle class. Still huge deficits that will cause a financial collapse very soon. 

You cannot take $1.6 trillion out of the economy and expect it to grow. There are so many economic side effects to taxation. Many people need to educate yourselves and read mises.org religiously. 

Better yet, why doesn't the FED just print the deficit money and give it as a gift to the govt? Exactly!!!

----------


## Liberty74

Also, there is a history income tax chart that shows it doesn't matter what top tax rate percentage is applied to the rich, the income taxes collected per GDP is about the same or around 8-10%.

----------


## seraphson

What if all the taxes were simply reduced/removed and government adjusts its expenditures to the new budget? This would promote individual responsibility on behalf of the people and the government; we would be all the more accountable and freer for it. This would negate the need to higher (and pay) an army of CPAs and instead the business could spend that towards more capital or towards an actual productive process of the business. If you keep going down the path of perpetually higher/more taxes you'll inevitably hit the threshold of the Laffer curve. Of course I should point out there are those big corporatocracies that receive government subsidies (bailouts, "stimulus", aka picking winners/losers) that distort and prevent any true form of a free market; but those are the very agencies that need to be addressed and corrected (banks being the biggest offender).

----------


## Acala

Big lie of the Democratic machine: "we can keep doing what we have been doing if we can just get "the rich" to pay their fair share."
Big lie of the Republican machine: "we can keep doing what we are doing if we can just kick the lazy bums off welfare and cut waste."

Both are lies designed to divide the country into factions fighting each other while the special interests that profit from government continue to fill their pockets and the country continues to spin down the drain.

----------


## DEGuy

I'm tired of having the "how should we tax the rich more" argument. Why doesn't anyone talk about how they got that money in the first place? We could solve the problem by putting an end to our centralized banking system that literally prints up money and puts it in the hands of the rich and their friends.

----------


## EcoWarrier

The rich could not avoid tax if we had Land valuation taxation (LVT).  The location of land is known to the inch.  Freeloaders are eliminated.  Land cannot be taken to off-shore banking havens.  LVT means no income tax, sales tax or inheritence tax. What people earn they keep.

Look up Geonomics. Using commonwealth to pay for common services.

----------


## georgiaboy

the problem isn't revenue.  it's spending.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> the problem isn't revenue.  it's spending.


Geonomics promotes enterprise with a vastly reduced need for governments to spend. All revenue can be captured by using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. Using LVT tax avoidance is impossible.

----------


## Acala

> the problem isn't revenue.  it's spending.


yup.  And crony capitalism/regulation/monetary policy.

----------


## Dr.3D

> the problem isn't revenue.  it's spending.


Exactly what I've been saying right along.   Cut the spending, and there is no need to increase revenue.

----------


## erowe1

> Geonomics promotes enterprise with a vastly reduced need for governments to spend. All revenue can be captured by using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. Using LVT tax avoidance is impossible.


Right. What's important is not what the government does with the money. All that really matters is that they get it. As long as they take the full rental value of the land away from people, the rulers could use that money to buy themselves gold-plated thrones. The taxing alone justifies itself.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> we all know everyone hates fed income tax , but i get sick of the neocon's and fox saying how the top 2-3 % pay over 50% of the fed income taxes.


But after tax the top 1% still has more wealth than the bottom 90%

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Right. What's important is not what the government does with the money. All that really matters is that they get it.


At the moment that is about right.  But when all the debt has gone what they do with is imoportant. LVT will reduce the need for big spending government.

----------


## Dr.3D

No one should have to pay any kind of tax to live in this world.

----------


## erowe1

> No one should have to pay any kind of tax to live in this world.


Uh oh. I know what's just about to happen to this thread.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Big lie of the Democratic machine: "we can keep doing what we have been doing if we can just get "the rich" to pay their fair share."
> Big lie of the Republican machine: "we can keep doing what we are doing if we can just kick the lazy bums off welfare and cut waste."
> 
> Both are lies designed to divide the country into factions fighting each other while the special interests that profit from government continue to fill their pockets and the country continues to spin down the drain.





> I'm tired of having the "how should we tax the rich more" argument. Why doesn't anyone talk about how they got that money in the first place? We could solve the problem by putting an end to our centralized banking system that literally prints up money and puts it in the hands of the rich and their friends.


+reps

----------


## Brian4Liberty

We have a dilemma. For most people, a political donation is an expense. It's money you will never see again. If you are lucky, it might help to promote your political message. When a connected person makes a political donation, it's an investment. They will make money based on it. A donation of $20,000 could very well result in $2,000,000 in additional money from government, either through favorable law or government contracts.

With such economic incentives for donations to corrupt politicians who will create necessarily complex and unfair tax code, how can the situation be changed? The rich get richer, the politicians more corrupt. Is it inevitable?

----------


## erowe1

> Is it inevitable?


I think it probably is.

----------


## Acala

> We have a dilemma. For most people, a political donation is an expense. It's money you will never see again. If you are lucky, it might help to promote your political message. When a connected person makes a political donation, it's an investment. They will make money based on it. A donation of $20,000 could very well result in $2,000,000 in additional money from government, either through favorable law or government contracts.
> 
> With such economic incentives for donations to corrupt politicians who will create necessarily complex and unfair tax code, how can the situation be changed? The rich get richer, the politicians more corrupt. Is it inevitable?


Strict limits on government functions and strict liimits on taxing powers.  But we had those and they were eventually eroded away.  I think the only check on government power that might work in the long run is the radical right to secession at every level with swift and harsh punishment for anyone who interferes with that right.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/27
> 
> 
> 
> Just my two cents, but the Top 1% of this country controls 50% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% of the country controls just 1% of the wealth.  Figures might be a bit off, might be like 2%, but its close enough for Govt work.  So it doesnt matter if the Govt were to take EVERYTHING from us, it is only equivilant of just 1% of what the rich already have!  So how is it they can expect to take more and more blood from us turnips?
> 
> Of course the real solution would be to cut the Income Tax period.  The people at the bottom should be able to take their wealth back from the rich because it was effectively stolen from them, and the Theft should be reimbursed!


Who controls the other 49%?

----------


## angelatc

> But after tax the top 1% still has more wealth than the bottom 90%


I hate liberals.   There's no legitimate economic reason to $#@!ing cry about a wealth gap, unless you're trying to incite class war. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/...gh-inequality/

----------


## Cowlesy

Worst thread of the week.

----------


## Acala

> I hate liberals.   There's no legitimate economic reason to $#@!ing cry about a wealth gap, unless you're trying to incite class war. 
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/...gh-inequality/


Yup.  Envy is universally considered a human vice.  Crying about income differential is pure envy.  

It is a different matter if you can show that the rich are getting rich through crony-capitalism and therefore at the expense of others.  But then the solution is to eliminate crony capitalism, not to tax the "rich".

----------


## Pericles

> Big lie of the Democratic machine: "we can keep doing what we have been doing if we can just get "the rich" to pay their fair share."
> Big lie of the Republican machine: "we can keep doing what we are doing if we can just kick the lazy bums off welfare and cut waste."
> 
> Both are lies designed to divide the country into factions fighting each other while the special interests that profit from government continue to fill their pockets and the country continues to spin down the drain.


Undisputable fact.

----------


## shocker315

The first guy sounds like a bit of a tool... but he makes a good point.

----------


## Roy L

> Envy is universally considered a human vice.


But greed, somehow, is good...?

Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil.  When you choose to rationalize and justify greed, or falsely to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries, you are serving evil in its most fundamental form.  It's that simple.



> Crying about income differential is pure envy.


No.  Opposition to injustice is the most fundamental human virtue.  Your claim is therefore pure dishonesty and pure evil.  A human being can commit no more evil act than to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries.



> It is a different matter if you can show that the rich are getting rich through crony-capitalism and therefore at the expense of others.


I have shown that they mainly get rich through privilege, and therefore at the expense of others:

_Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/sec...secretsqa.html

Almost all the wealth of almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real estate":

1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."

2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges

3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources

4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges

5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!

6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources

7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!

8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!

9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
productive

10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...

11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"

12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."

13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership

14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege

15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!

16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege

17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege

18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive

19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)

20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege

21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges

Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made" billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) actually made the bulk of their money through actual productive contributions. The rest were
all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means._ 



> But then the solution is to eliminate crony capitalism, not to tax the "rich".


The problem is not "crony capitalism," but rather the mechanism by which it is enshrined in law: privilege.

----------


## Roy L

> Who controls the other 49%?


The 51st through 99th percents.  Duh.

----------


## angelatc

Land ownership isn't a privilege.  A career in media isn't a privilege.  Owning a copyright isn't a privilege. 

Who in the world are these people?

----------


## Roy L

> I hate liberals.


Like the Founding Fathers?



> There's no legitimate economic reason to $#@!ing cry about a wealth gap, unless you're trying to incite class war.


That is a deeply evil lie, as Warren Buffett told you:

Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning. -- Warren Buffett



> http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/...gh-inequality/


Check this masterpiece of dishonesty and illogic from that article:

"While many people cite inequality as a cause for the recession and joblessness, inequality was actually higher during the boom times of 2007 and 2008, when unemployment was under 5%."

"A caused B" _means_ that A must have happened BEFORE B.  Hello?  The record high inequality of 2007 and 2008, followed by the collapse, is therefore excellent reason to think that inequality DID cause the recession and joblessness.

----------


## Roy L

> Land ownership isn't a privilege.


It is indisputably a privilege, as it removes others' rights to liberty without just compensation.



> A career in media isn't a privilege.


It might or might not be, depending on what that "career" involves.  A "career" in owning broadcast spectrum allocations is indisputably a privilege.



> Owning a copyright isn't a privilege.


It most certainly and indisputably *is* a privilege.  A copyright is created, issued and enforced by government.



> Who in the world are these people?


The only hope you have, for one.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil.  When you choose to rationalize and justify greed, or falsely to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries, you are serving evil in its most fundamental form.  It's that simple.


Define greed, Roy.  Not how you feel about it, which, who gives a rat's butt except you.  And not your preferred biblical non-mistranslation (you said how it was mistranslated, but didn't provide an alternate translation).  No empty or ill-defined sentiments. What definition are you going by? 

Is it:

a) intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.  
b) an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth...
c) a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. 
d) Other (please elucidate, spell out with specificity)

I am curious to see just how widely you cast your righteously indignant condemnation net where "greed" is concerned. 




> The problem is not "crony capitalism," but rather the mechanism by which it is enshrined in law: privilege.


While you're at it, give us your definition of privilege, yeah? And the criteria for that.

----------


## torchbearer

are they talking about a 2 trillion dollar deficit or a 100 billion dollar deficit?

----------


## Roy L

> the problem isn't revenue.  it's spending.


It's both: the unjust and harmful ways government obtains revenue necessitate unjust, wasteful and excessive spending to try to undo the harm the unjust revenue system causes.

But the basic question is very simple: if you think spending is the problem, why do you want to pay for government *twice*?

----------


## angelatc

I have better things to do than sort through your liberal gibberish. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-20-cover-generation-wealth_N.htm


 Bottom Line: Income typically peaks at age 57 and wealth at age 63, according to the Federal Reserve. Therefore it may not be so much that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," as much as it is that as the older baby boom generation enters their peak years of earnings and wealth, the older baby boom generation (especially the college graduates) is getting richer. Ergo a generation gap contributes to income inequality (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/search?q=Wealth+Gap)

----------


## awake

In other words, your neighbors corvette could pay of your friends Larry's gambling debt? Your neighbor wont miss it...He has a second car anyway.

----------


## angelatc

> It is indisputably a privilege, as it removes others' rights to liberty without just compensation.
> 
> It might or might not be, depending on what that "career" involves.  A "career" in owning broadcast spectrum allocations is indisputably a privilege.
> 
> It most certainly and indisputably *is* a privilege.  A copyright is created, issued and enforced by government.
> 
> The only hope you have, for one.


You don't speak for me.  Don't you dare.

The only legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our property.  A copyright is issued by the government as a means to that end.

----------


## angelatc

The wealth gap!  It's not fair that my junior high schooler's smart phone isn't a nice as John Kerry's.  And all 5 of us had to wait for the Google $199 tablet to come out, because there's no way we could afford iPads for the whole family, like the Romney clan.

It's not fair, I tell you!!!

----------


## torchbearer

> You don't speak for me.  Don't you dare.
> 
> The only legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our property.  A copyright is issued by the government as a means to that end.



Thank God Atanasoff wasn't given the IP privilege over computers or we wouldn't be online talking about this idea.





> The Atanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC) is completed. 
> After successfully demonstrating a proof-of-concept prototype in 1939, Atanasoff 
> received funds to build the full-scale machine.  Built at Iowa State College 
> (now University), the ABC was designed and built by Professor John Vincent 
> Atanasoff and graduate student Cliff Berry between 1939 and 1942. The ABC was at 
> the center of a patent dispute relating to the invention of the computer, which 
> was resolved in 1973 when it was shown that ENIAC co-designer John Mauchly had 
> come to examine the ABC shortly after it became functional.
> 
> ...


http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1942

----------


## awake

Every one less richer than you is making the same argument to make the rich guy pay. The principle is simply theft. The "rich" need to be sorted properly(the justly rich from the unjustly rich)...this can only be done when you cut government so it fits in a closet that locks. All other attempts to do anything simply grows the state and erodes property rights.

----------


## angelatc

One Source Of Income Income Inequality: The Marriage Gap

----------


## angelatc

> Thank God Atanasoff wasn't given the IP privilege over computers or we wouldn't be online talking about this idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1942


You don't know that to be true, and I am guessing his heirs don't feel the same.  I happen to think people should profit off their innovations.

----------


## down_south

This is complete nonsense. Lets just simply look at number 1, which is Individual and small business tax avoidance costs us $450 billion. How does this COST us $450 billion? And who does it cost?? Are the poor and Liberals that greedy that they have already predetermined how much of a businesss money belongs to them?? Why dont they actually try getting a job with the small business instead of demanding more taxes in order to support their welfare checks and other entitlement programs?? All the businesses will do is raise their prices by $450 billion. A better question might be, what would the government do with an additional $450 billion?? Likely use it to buy votes. And if the government did raise taxes by say, $1 trillion, how would people react when the cost of the goods and services we buy go up by $1 trillion? 

In addition to COST, I am also amused by saying that a percentage of the country CONTROLS a certain amount of money. If this is the case, the poor control a large percentage of the poverty and a large percentage of the entitlement programs and a large percentage of troubled children. With that said, heres the million dollar question.would America be better off with more rich people or more poor people aka socialist moochers? I mean seriously, if we are going to start cutting spending, it makes sense to cut welfare spending, Medicaid, section 8 housing, education, etc before we start cutting spending on police and firefighters. 

What gives the bottom 50% the idea that we are better off keeping them around in the current form and continuing to subsidize their poor decisions in life?? As far as Geonomics, I think we all can tell how that would turn out.

1) Everyone is ordered to pay X% of tax per every tenth of an acre they own. 

2) Along comes a poor man whos poor wife has caught the pregnancy virus for a fifth time and he cant afford his taxes. He is given a free pass and no longer pays taxes.

3) Along comes a rich company looking for a break. They claim they shouldnt pay as much for some reason or another (Starbucks did this when they claimed that since they were manufacturing, they should have to pay a lower tax rate). Then they get a break.

4) Taxes and prices of goods and services go up as businesses and landowners are squeezed to make up for lost revenue.

5) Repeat steps 1-4


Hats off to the person on this board who said the problem isn't revenue. it's spending. Its too bad we couldnt just cut spending.

----------


## Roy L

> Define greed, Roy.


"Excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves."



> And not your preferred biblical non-mistranslation (you said how it was mistranslated, but didn't provide an alternate translation).


??  "Greed" is the alternate translation, which I gave.  Duh.



> No empty or ill-defined sentiments. What definition are you going by? 
> 
> Is it:
> 
> a) intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.  
> b) an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth...
> c) a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. 
> d) Other (please elucidate, spell out with specificity)


See above; b and c are both close enough.



> I am curious to see just how widely you cast your righteously indignant condemnation net where "greed" is concerned.


See above.  One cannot fault people for wanting what they need, even if they don't deserve it; nor can we complain about them wanting what they deserve, even if they don't need it.  But excessive, rapacious desire for something they neither need *nor* deserve usually means they intend to violate others' rights to get it, and that specific intention is the root of all manner of evil.



> While you're at it, give us your definition of privilege, yeah? And the criteria for that.


"Privilege" is from the Latin meaning, "private law."  It is a legal entitlement, not extended equally to all,  to benefit from government violation of others' rights.  It is therefore legal empowerment of private greed through public policy.

----------


## angelatc

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/re...quality-matter




> ncome inequality measures don't tell us much about poverty and, as this report argues, can actually mask declines in living standards of the poor. Furthermore, there is no good reason to use country-specific inequality measures as opposed to a global measure; if the latter is used, prioritites for poverty reduction shift dramatically. This report argues against the current fashion for using inequality as a measure of living standards, and argues that it may be hindering efforts to fight poverty.

----------


## angelatc

> But excessive, rapacious desire for something they neither *need nor deserve* usually means they intend to violate others' rights to get it, and that specific intention is the root of all manner of evil.


What a load of horse hockey that is.

----------


## torchbearer

> You don't know that to be true, and I am guessing his heirs don't feel the same.  I happen to think people should profit off their innovations.


but he didn't create the computer. many people with many ideas led to the machine you are using today.
and all complex devices required many people working together.
that one dude didn't invent the computer, and al gore didn't invent the internet.
in fact, the communication of all ideas require words. who owns those? who are you paying for the IP lease to you use the words you are typing?
some things can't be owned.

----------


## angelatc

Inequality Hasn't Really Risen In The US




> It is true that inequality as measured by market incomes has increased in the US. It is also true that consumption inequality hasn't changed very much at all. How can we reconcile these two views? Well, that's after we answer the more important question, which inequality should we care about? How much people get in their paycheques or how much people get to eat?

----------


## Roy L

> You don't speak for me.  Don't you dare.


I'm not speaking for you.  I'm telling you that your philosophy is evil, and suicidal for societies, and has destroyed many of them.  If you hope for your society to avoid their fate, shut up and pay attention to what I am telling you.



> The only legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our property.


That is absurd propertarian bull$#!+ that implies government should never have abolished chattel slavery:

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. *Worse than all, private property was to be invaded* (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”
–Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850



> A copyright is issued by the government as a means to that end.


No, it isn't.  There is no such thing as property in an abstraction.  A copyright is a privilege of exclusive use of abstract information that would otherwise be in the public domain.

----------


## Roy L

> What a load of horse hockey that is.


It is fact.  It is merely fact that you have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

----------


## angelatc

> but he didn't create the computer. many people with many ideas led to the machine you are using today. and all complex devices required many people working together.


I really don't even know what this has to do with income inequality, but if many people invented the computer, then the corporation they were working for should own the copyright(s).  





> that one dude didn't invent the computer, and al gore didn't invent the internet.
> in fact, the communication of all ideas require words. who owns those? who are you paying for the IP lease to you use the words you are typing?
> some things can't be owned.


The words that I type are indeed mine.  I do own those, although I might have agreed to give up my ownership rights to Josh when I signed up.   I am paying Comcast every month to put my words out here.

----------


## angelatc

> It is fact.  It is merely fact that you have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.


I know, right???

----------


## Roy L

> I have better things to do than sort through your liberal gibberish.


Translation: You cannot refute a single sentence I have written; you know it; and you have no answers.



> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-20-cover-generation-wealth_N.htm
> 
>  Bottom Line: Income typically peaks at age 57 and wealth at age 63, according to the Federal Reserve. Therefore it may not be so much that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," as much as it is that as the older baby boom generation enters their peak years of earnings and wealth, the older baby boom generation (especially the college graduates) is getting richer. Ergo a generation gap contributes to income inequality (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/search?q=Wealth+Gap)


That does not account for the massive increase in concentration of wealth at the very top, astronomical CEO pay, massive bonuses in the catastrophically ill-managed financial sector, etc.

----------


## angelatc

> Translation: You cannot refute a single sentence I have written; you know it; and you have no answers.
> 
> That does not account for the massive increase in concentration of wealth at the very top, astronomical CEO pay, massive bonuses in the catastrophically ill-managed financial sector, etc.


There are no answers, because it is impossible to prove what purple smells like.

----------


## torchbearer

> I really don't even know what this has to do with income inequality, but if many people invented the computer, then the corporation they were working for should own the copyright(s).  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words that I type are indeed mine.  I do own those, although I might have agreed to give up my ownership rights to Josh when I signed up.   I am paying Comcast every month to put my words out here.


you don't own the words you use because someone else created them.
be consistant at least. either ideas are property or they are not.
shakespeare created some of the words you are using, why aren't you sending checks to his estate's heirs?

and this has nothing to do with progressive income tax and everything to do with state/fed laws giving privileges to some and punishing others.

----------


## Roy L

> In other words, your neighbors corvette could pay of your friends Larry's gambling debt?


No.  If the productive did not have to pay taxes to government to fund services and infrastructure, and then pay landowners for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for, they'd have a lot more money than they do.



> Your neighbor wont miss it...He has a second car anyway.


Blatant strawman fallacy.

----------


## Roy L

> The wealth gap!  It's not fair that my junior high schooler's smart phone isn't a nice as John Kerry's.  And all 5 of us had to wait for the Google $199 tablet to come out, because there's no way we could afford iPads for the whole family, like the Romney clan.
> 
> It's not fair, I tell you!!!


Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant to the issue?

----------


## awake

> No.  If the productive did not have to pay taxes to government to fund services and infrastructure, and then pay landowners for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for, they'd have a lot more money than they do.
> 
> Blatant strawman fallacy.


Straw man nothing; I just summed up the tax the rich fallacy in an easy to understand analogy.

----------


## Roy L

> Every one less richer than you is making the same argument to make the rich guy pay.


No, they are mostly stupid, ignorant sheep, and are happy to toil their lives away on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure.  You are probably a typical example.



> The principle is simply theft.


Yep.  By the rich, with government's help.



> The "rich" need to be sorted properly(the justly rich from the unjustly rich)...


"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac



> this can only be done when you cut government so it fits in a closet that locks.


If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.



> All other attempts to do anything simply grows the state and erodes property rights.


Property "rights"?  See the quote from Patrick Edward Dove re property "rights."

----------


## angelatc

> you don't own the words you use because someone else created them


Yes, but that happened so long ago that they're now in the public domain.  I do however, own them in a manner when I arrange them in a certain order. 




> be consistant at least. either ideas or property or they or not.


THey are. 


> shakespeare created some of the words you are using, why aren't you sending checks to his estate's heirs?


  I'm not performing or even quoting Shakespeare. And even if I were, while I'm not familiar with British copyright law, I assume that it's because his words have existed so long they've entered the public domain. (And I'm not even sure that Shakespeare created words, but perhaps he did.)


> and this how nothing to do with progressive income tax and everything to do with state/fed laws giving privileges to some and punishing others.


The only legitimate function is to protect our property.   I'd be pissed of I wrote something that was 5% the genius of a Shakespeare work, only to have a Hollywood liberal turn it into a script, make a box office smash, and not pay me a dime for the story.

----------


## angelatc

> Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant to the issue?


Absolutely not. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4609789

----------


## awake

> No, they are mostly stupid, ignorant sheep, and are happy to toil their lives away on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure.  You are probably a typical example.
> 
> Yep.  By the rich, with government's help.
> 
> "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac
> 
> If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.
> 
> Property "rights"?  See the quote from Patrick Edward Dove re property "rights."


Why are you here?

----------


## angelatc

> No, they are mostly stupid, ignorant sheep, and are happy to toil their lives away on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure.  You are probably a typical example.


There's the liberal tripe again. "You're too stupid to take care of yourself!"

----------


## angelatc

> Why are you here?


He's an ecowarrior or something.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes, but that happened so long ago that they're now in the public domain.  I do however, own them in a manner when I arrange them in a certain order. 
> 
> 
> 
> THey are.   I'm not performing or even quoting Shakespeare. And even if I were, while I'm not familiar with British copyright law, I assume that it's because his words have existed so long they've entered the public domain. (And I'm not even sure that Shakespeare created words, but perhaps he did.)
> 
> The only legitimate function is to protect our property.   I'd be pissed of I wrote something that was 5% the genius of a Shakespeare work, only to have a Hollywood liberal turn it into a script, make a box office smash, and not pay me a dime for the story.



so property has a limit?
if your property has been in your family for so long it becomes public domain?
please tell me you have family land that has been in the family for more than one generation. i will be sending people to settle into the public domain of your property.
if a government can say when a property is yours and when it isn't- it is not a natural right, but a privilege grant by a politician.
I was waiting for you to bring in the time limit. for natural rights are unlimited. government granted privileges are limited.
which would you say the words you are using fall under?

----------


## Roy L

> You don't know that to be true, and I am guessing his heirs don't feel the same.


Who cares how much his heirs want to be parasites on the productive?  It is effectively certain to be true.  The story of how Watt's steam engine patent prevented progress in steam technology is instructive:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/genera...ainstfinal.htm



> I happen to think people should profit off their innovations.


I happen to think they should, too -- if they can do so in the free market, without violating others' rights.

Do you claim ANYTHING government does to make sure people "profit off their innovations" is justified?  What about levying a special tax on all patented products and distributing the revenue to all patent holders equally?  Why are the monopoly privileges of the patent system justified to ensure people profit from their innovations, but not a tax on those who use the innovations?

----------


## angelatc

> so property has a limit?
> if your property has been in your family for so long it becomes public domain?


According to the government, yes, but they're not really very good at protecting rights.




> please tell me you have family land that has been in the family for more than one generation. i will be sending people to settle into the public domain of your property.


 Nope, the family lands got sold off so that the estate could be divided.



> if a government can say when a property is yours and when it isn't- it is not a natural right, but a privilege grant by a politician.


The answer is having the government protect more property, not less.




> I was waiting for you to bring in the time limit. for natural rights are unlimited. government granted privileges are limited.
> which would you say the words you are using fall under?


If I had my druthers, I'd enjoy government protection of my property rights in perpetuity, and my heirs would assume it from me upon my death.  In the real world, I have no idea how long it lasts.  I know Disney got it changed, to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

----------


## angelatc

> Who cares how much his heirs want to be parasites on the productive?  It is effectively certain to be true.  The story of how Watt's steam engine patent prevented progress in steam technology is instructive:
> 
> http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/genera...ainstfinal.htm
> 
> I happen to think they should, too -- if they can do so in the free market, without violating others' rights.
> 
> Do you claim ANYTHING government does to make sure people "profit off their innovations" is justified?  What about levying a special tax on all patented products and distributing the revenue to all patent holders equally?  Why are the monopoly privileges of the patent system justified to ensure people profit from their innovations, but not a tax on those who use the innovations?


No special tax needed.  That's what dividends are for.

----------


## angelatc

> Who cares how much his heirs want to be parasites on the productive?


I know, right? The government should get all that cash!

----------


## torchbearer

> I know Disney got it changed, to keep Mickey out of the public domain.



it must not have been theirs to begin with if they had to bargain for it.
perhaps these subtle hints are missing you.
still, with your property of ideas mentality, you owe quite a bit to someone else for the text you are writing. this didn't come out of nothing.
the words you are using are part of someone else's thinking first. you are stealing from them. have you no shame?

----------


## Roy L

> I mean seriously, if we are going to start cutting spending, it makes sense to cut welfare spending, Medicaid, section 8 housing, education, etc before we start cutting spending on police and firefighters.


Rich, greedy takers get an order of magnitude more from government and the community than the poor, yet they number an order of magnitude fewer.



> As far as Geonomics, I think we all can tell how that would turn out.
> 
> 1) Everyone is ordered to pay X% of tax per every tenth of an acre they own.


Wrong.  That's not geonomics.  Pay attention.



> 2) Along comes a poor man whos poor wife has caught the pregnancy virus for a fifth time and he cant afford his taxes. He is given a free pass and no longer pays taxes.


No, *EVERY* resident citizen gets an *equal* individual land tax exemption for enough good land to live on.



> 3) Along comes a rich company looking for a break. They claim they shouldnt pay as much for some reason or another (Starbucks did this when they claimed that since they were manufacturing, they should have to pay a lower tax rate).


Claiming some other system will be implemented instead is not an argument against geonomics.



> 4) Taxes and prices of goods and services go up as businesses and landowners are squeezed to make up for lost revenue.


A tax on land rent cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to consumers, employees, suppliers, or anyone else.  It is paid exclusively by the landowner.  Economists do not agree about much, but they do agree about that.  Google "Law of Rent" and start reading.



> 5) Repeat steps 1-4


Refuted above.



> Hats off to the person on this board who said the problem isn't revenue. it's spending. Its too bad we couldnt just cut spending.


I have explained why that is impossible: the unjust and harmful tax system makes the spending necessary.

----------


## idiom

> The rich could not avoid tax if we had Land valuation taxation (LVT).  The location of land is known to the inch.  Freeloaders are eliminated.  Land cannot be taken to off-shore banking havens.  LVT means no income tax, sales tax or inheritence tax. What people earn they keep.
> 
> Look up Geonomics. Using commonwealth to pay for common services.


Freeloaders are eliminated? Hark at the man!




> 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.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> "Excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves."


Thought so.  Now define "needs" and "deserves" -- in your statist-intended context.  The reason that's important: "needs" isn't qualified. What kind of needs?  A prison can satisfy basic human needs.  I can erect a tent city, with just enough "good land" for everyone to sleep on, and provide water and a nutritious gruel for sustenance.  

What, specifically, are the "needs" of people, a desire beyond which you would consider evil, dirty, pernicious filthy greed? 

And while we're at it, what does "deserves" mean, exactly -- to you? How do you define "deserves", and more specifically, *who are you* that you should define it for everyone? 




> ...excessive, rapacious desire for something they neither need *nor* deserve usually means they intend to violate others' rights to get it...


Oh, is that what it "usually" means?  Absolutely meaningless, as you haven't defined "need" or "deserve" yet.  Need means "require", and "require" is qualified "_to a given objective, or purpose_".  I may not NEED a metric ton of rice for dinner, but I may _feel that I need_ ten tons of rice if I am storing up rice with the intent of preparing for a famine, or to feed a lot of people going into the future.  I may not NEED a hundred thousand dollars THIS MONTH, not that it's any of your collectivist statist poop-pants concern, but I may NEED a hundred thousand dollars as part of my retirement savings.  Who is going to establish the criteria used to judge "needs" and "deserves", you 'n yer brand-o-gubmint? 

Your thoughts about legal privilege and what it means to you: coming soon, to a woodshed near you.

----------


## angelatc

> it must not have been theirs to begin with if they had to bargain for it.
> perhaps these subtle hints are missing you.


Just because the government had taken it away does not mean it was never theirs to begin with.

----------


## angelatc

> Freeloaders are eliminated? Hark at the man!


Commonwealth - LOL!  Everything that I want shall be deemed commonwealth!

----------


## idiom

This seems appropriate.

----------


## torchbearer

> Just because the government had taken it away does not mean it was never theirs to begin with.


you missed the other half of the post-
but just letting you know- property granted by the state is not a right but a privilege.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> (And I'm not even sure that Shakespeare created words, but perhaps he did.)


This is just an OT aside, for those who are interested:

Shakespeare was a prolific word creator. He coined around 2,000 words - about one out of every ten (distinct) words he used had never been used before.

These are just a few of the words he created: critical, monumental, majestic, obscene, countless, excellent, hurry, and lonely.

He also coined numerous well-known & commonly-used phrases, such as "in the mind's eye", "one fell swoop", to be "in a pickle", "vanish into thin air", "play fast and loose" & "budge an inch" (and many, many others).

[Source: Bill Bryson, The Mother Tongue: English & How It Got That Way]

----------


## torchbearer

> This is just an OT aside, for those who are interested:
> 
> Shakespeare was a prolific word creator. He coined around 2,000 words - about one out of every ten (distinct) words he used had never been used before.
> 
> These are just a few of the words he created: critical, monumental, majestic, obscene, countless, excellent, hurry, and lonely.
> 
> He also coined numerous well-known & commonly-used phrases, such as "in the mind's eye", "one fell swoop", to be "in a pickle", "vanish into thin air", "play fast and loose" & "budge an inch" (and many, many others).
> 
> [Source: Bill Bryson, The Mother Tongue: English & How It Got That Way]



thanks for the fill-in.
angel uses his words and doesn't think she needs to pay for them. the nerve.

----------


## angelatc

> you missed the other half of the post-
> but just letting you know- property granted by the state is not a right but a privilege.


The second half of the post was stupid, but since you're determined to own it... if the person who invented the English language can step forward and prove ownership, then we can start having conversations about what his fair share is.

Property isn't granted by the state. It's protected by the state, and sometimes reallocated by the state.

----------


## angelatc

> thanks for the fill-in.
> angel uses his words and doesn't think she needs to pay for them. the nerve.


My name is Angela, and if his heirs wanted society to pay them for his contributions, I'd support that.  You prefer to leech?  

Good lord, why should the man who wrote things down to entertain us actually get paid for the effort?  That's stupid considering we can simply vote for the right to use his works for free.

----------


## torchbearer

> The second half of the post was stupid, but since you're determined to own it... if the person who invented the English language can step forward and prove ownership, then we can start having conversations about what his fair share is.
> 
> Property isn't granted by the state. It's protected by the state, and sometimes reallocated by the state.


someone has already post  owned words(by shakespear). that was just one i knew off the top off my head. are you going to pay now? no? ok, thought so.
and those rights are not protected by the state, they are given out to people. you have to apply for them- and then be given them. its not just a natural protection.

----------


## torchbearer

> My name is Angela, and if his heirs wanted society to pay them for his contributions, I'd support that.  You prefer to leech?  
> 
> Good lord, why should the man who wrote things down to entertain us actually get paid for the effort?  That's stupid considering we can simply vote for the right to use his works for free.


did you ask his heirs if they wanted to be paid?
it has been assumed that his words couldn't be owned.

----------


## angelatc

> someone has already post  owned words(by shakespear). that was just one i knew off the top off my head. are you going to pay now? no? ok, thought so.
> and those rights are not protected by the state, they are given out to people. you have to apply for them- and then be given them. its not just a natural protection.


Why are you assigning me positions that I don't take, then proceeding to call me a hypocrite?  

(ACtually, written works are indeed protected whether or not you apply for them. )

----------


## torchbearer

> written works are indeed protected whether or not you apply for them. )


but you keep using them without paying. why?

----------


## angelatc

> did you ask his heirs if they wanted to be paid?
> it has been assumed that his words couldn't be owned.


Who assumed that? Besides you, I mean. 

And if the law at the time didn't protect the works of the artists, then the law was wrong then.

----------


## angelatc

> but you keep using them without paying. why?


OK, I'm done with your pointless noise.  You want people to work with no right to profit from their creations.  We get that.

----------


## torchbearer

> Who assumed that? Besides you, I mean. 
> 
> And if the law at the time didn't protect the works of the artists, then the law was wrong then.



assumed what? that you aren't paying for the words you using?
good assumption since no one pays for words they are using- especially those who think all ideas are a personal property.

let's look at music- the riff for louie, louie, wild thing, hang on sloopie, and about 70% of all rock songs using the same exact riff. i don't see all these bands paying the family of the slave from southern miss. for it?
well, the government didn't designate an owner- so i guess there wasn't one. but other people can steal that idea and then charge you for it as if it was theirs.

----------


## angelatc

> No, *EVERY resident citizen gets an equal individual land tax exemption for enough good land to live on.*


If we did that, in 10 years half of the population would again be paying rent to landlords, having long ago sold their land for booze and whores.

----------


## torchbearer

//

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I'm tired of having the "how should we tax the rich more" argument. Why doesn't anyone talk about how they got that money in the first place? We could solve the problem by putting an end to our centralized banking system that literally prints up money and puts it in the hands of the rich and their friends.


"The rich" is a diverse group.  There's Steve Jobs, the creators of Instagram, and LeBron James.... then there's Ben Bernanke.

In my experience the majority of "the rich" got there's the right way.

----------


## misean

> "The rich" is a diverse group.  There's Steve Jobs, the creators of Instagram, and LeBron James.... then there's Ben Bernanke.
> 
> In my experience the majority of "the rich" got there's the right way.


Do you consider Ben Bernanke rich?  LOL.  Just looked it up. He only makes 190k a year as the most powerful man in the world.

Also this video from Tony Robbins (has absolutely nothing to do with his other stuff) is actually pretty well researched. Its 20 minutes and does a better job than anything I've seen getting perspective on the debt and why soaking the rich doesn't work.

----------


## misean

> Of course the real solution would be to cut the Income Tax period.  The people at the bottom should be able to take their wealth back from the rich because it was effectively stolen from them, and the Theft should be reimbursed!


From each according to his means to each according to his needs. Workers of the world unite, comrade.

----------


## pochy1776

> Worst thread of the week.


that belongs to my thread DEAR GOP. I suck.

----------


## Roy L

> OK, I'm done with your pointless noise.  You want people to work with no right to profit from their creations.  We get that.


No, you're just lying about what we have plainly written.  We hope creative people profit from their creations, but not at the expense of violating others' rights.  What part of that are you not understanding?  Do you understand the difference between a cab driver profiting from his labor by making a market wage, and the same cab driver doing the same work but making twice as much money because he has a taxi medallion that violates others' rights?

----------


## Roy L

> I really don't even know what this has to do with income inequality, but if many people invented the computer, then the corporation they were working for should own the copyright(s).


Why is it so important to you that corporations should own people's opportunities to use and benefit by human knowledge?



> The words that I type are indeed mine.


Nope.  They're in the public domain.  They can only be turned into private property by government fiat.



> I do own those, although I might have agreed to give up my ownership rights to Josh when I signed up.   I am paying Comcast every month to put my words out here.


How would anyone own them?

----------


## Roy L

> There are no answers, because it is impossible to prove what purple smells like.


*YOU* have no answers, because it is *very* possible to know what *bull$#!+* smells like.

----------


## Roy L

> Straw man nothing;


It was a strawman fallacy, you know it, and you are lying.



> I just summed up the tax the rich fallacy in an easy to understand analogy.


No, you just fabricated a stupid lie about what we have plainly written, because you have no facts, logic, or arguments to offer.  Simple.

----------


## Origanalist

Roy L's theme song;

----------


## Roy L

> Yes, but that happened so long ago that they're now in the public domain.


Why would the time make any difference?  If they were property when they were coined, they are still the property of the heirs of those who coined them.



> I do however, own them in a manner when I arrange them in a certain order.


Only if government says so.



> THey are.


They aren't.  Words were never considered property in the whole history of the world until a few hundred years ago, and wouldn't be today except that government says they are.



> I'm not performing or even quoting Shakespeare. And even if I were, while I'm not familiar with British copyright law, I assume that it's because his words have existed so long they've entered the public domain.


How could rightful property suddenly cease to be property through having existed too long?



> (And I'm not even sure that Shakespeare created words, but perhaps he did.)


He definitely did.  More than any other known person.



> The only legitimate function is to protect our property.


Garbage.  Any valid right to property is itself wholly derivative of the rights to life and liberty.  

How many more millions of human sacrifices must laid on the altar of your Great God Property?



> I'd be pissed of I wrote something that was 5% the genius of a Shakespeare work, only to have a Hollywood liberal turn it into a script, make a box office smash, and not pay me a dime for the story.


Yes, well, no doubt slave owners were also pissed when their "property" was taken away from them.  Why should you be paid a dime?  You didn't create the movie or even the script.  You had no contract with the producer who did.  What insufferable greed.

----------


## Roy L

> Why are you here?


_"NEAR the window by which I write, a great bull is tethered by a ring in his nose. Grazing round and round he has wound his rope about the stake until now he stands a close prisoner, tantalized by rich grass he cannot reach, unable even to toss his head to rid him of the flies that cluster on his shoulders. Now and again he struggles vainly, and then, after pitiful bellowings, relapses into silent misery.

This bull, a very type of massive strength, who, because he has not wit enough to see how he might be free, suffers want in sight of plenty, and is helplessly preyed upon by weaker creatures, seems to me no unfit emblem of the working masses.

In all lands, men whose toil creates abounding wealth are pinched with poverty, and, while advancing civilization opens wider vistas and awakens new desires, are held down to brutish levels by animal needs. Bitterly conscious of injustice, feeling in their inmost souls that they were made for more than so narrow a life, they, too, spasmodically struggle and cry out. But until they trace effect to cause, until they see how they are fettered and how they may be freed, their struggles and outcries are as vain as those of the bull. Nay, they are vainer. I shall go out and drive the bull in the way that will untwist his rope. But who shall drive men into freedom?"_
-- Henry George, in "Protection or Free Trade?"

----------


## Roy L

> There's the liberal tripe again. "You're too stupid to take care of yourself!"


Reflect on the global financial crisis, and the trillions of taxpayers' dollars that have been given to those most responsible for causing it, and tell me how clever the American people are.

----------


## Roy L

> According to the government, yes, but they're not really very good at protecting rights.


True: they are much better at _violating_ rights to enforce _privileges_ -- which brings us back to the rightful tax burden for the rich.



> Nope, the family lands got sold off so that the estate could be divided.


But it's still _someone's_ property.



> The answer is having the government protect more property, not less.


I see.  So, the letters of the alphabet should be made into private property so that their lucky owners can charge everyone else rent for using them?  How about numbers?



> If I had my druthers, I'd enjoy government protection of my property rights in perpetuity, and my heirs would assume it from me upon my death.


I.e., you want to be privileged, and to live in a feudal system of hereditary landed aristocracy, just as long as you can be the lord.  Thought so.



> In the real world, I have no idea how long it lasts.  I know Disney got it changed, to keep Mickey out of the public domain.


Which was an outrageous extension of what should never have been property in the first place.

----------


## Roy L

> No special tax needed.


Yes, actually, it is.  It is needed to make sure people profit from their innovations, which you said they should.  Most innovators and patent holders don't make any money under the current system.  Under my tax proposal, they would.  So the tax is needed to make sure innovators profit from their innovations.



> That's what dividends are for.


Garbage.  Dividends are paid to shareholders, not innovators.  Try again.

----------


## Roy L

> I know, right? The government should get all that cash!


Better than getting it by taxing people according to how much they produce.

----------


## idiom

> That does not account for the massive increase in concentration of wealth at the very top, astronomical CEO pay, massive bonuses in the catastrophically ill-managed financial sector, etc.


Oh I know, lets use LVT to fix that!




> 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.


It should be noted that Taiwan has a public debt of 40% of its GDP.

----------


## Roy L

> Freeloaders are eliminated? Hark at the man!


50 years of one-party rule is not exactly democracy.  Without democratic accountability, of course LVT revenue can be diverted to freeloaders.  Is this some sort of surprise?

----------


## Roy L

> Oh I know, lets use LVT to fix that!


LVT is not a panacea -- I don't think anyone claims it is -- but it would fix a lot of it, because people would no longer have to go into debt to buy a home.  That would further reduce the amount of economic rent available for the banksters and other parasites to take.

----------


## Roy L

> Just because the government had taken it away does not mean it was never theirs to begin with.


It was never theirs to begin with because the government had to give it to them.

----------


## idiom

> LVT is not a panacea -- I don't think anyone claims it is -- but it would fix a lot of it, because people would no longer have to go into debt to buy a home.  That would further reduce the amount of economic rent available for the banksters and other parasites to take.


People don't have to go into into debt to buy a home. They didn't historically. Its a pretty modern phenomenon.

----------


## idiom

> A tax on land rent cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to consumers, employees, suppliers, or anyone else.  It is paid exclusively by the landowner.


Where does the landowner get the money to pay rent?

What is fungibility?

----------


## Roy L

> This seems appropriate.


What it doesn't explain is why abstract information and ideas need to be someone's property.

----------


## Roy L

> Where does the landowner get the money to pay rent?


Wherever he likes.  If he wants to get it by using the land productively, he can do that.  If he just wants to rent it to someone else who will use it productively, he can do that.  If he wants to leave the land idle and pay the rent out of his other resources, he can do that.  Up to him.  He just can't deprive everyone else of the land and not compensate them.



> What is fungibility?


Ability to be exchanged.  And your point would be...?

----------


## Roy L

> Commonwealth - LOL!  Everything that I want shall be deemed commonwealth!


Another strawman lie.

----------


## Roy L

> Thought so.


Then you only asked to waste my time?  How like you.



> Now define "needs" and "deserves" -- in your statist-intended context.


There is no "statist-intended context," so stop lying.  I'm using the words in their normal senses, which you can look up in a good dictionary if you are confused, as you could have looked up "greed" if you had been interested in honest discussion.  I am not going to engage in an infinite regress of definition.



> The reason that's important: "needs" isn't qualified.


That's right.  It just means what it says.



> What kind of needs?


Human needs.



> A prison can satisfy basic human needs.


In fact, they are required by law to do so.



> I can erect a tent city, with just enough "good land" for everyone to sleep on, and provide water and a nutritious gruel for sustenance.


That's what refugee camps do.  So what?  Is this going somewhere?



> What, specifically, are the "needs" of people, a desire beyond which you would consider evil, dirty, pernicious filthy greed?


You know very well what they are: air first, then water and food; clothing and shelter in most climates.  The things they need to stay alive and healthy.



> And while we're at it, what does "deserves" mean, exactly -- to you?


The same thing it means to you.  I just don't lie about it.



> How do you define "deserves", and more specifically, *who are you* that you should define it for everyone?


<yawn>  I don't define it for everyone, STOP LYING.  Consult a good dictionary for the definitions of ordinary words, and stop wasting my time.



> Oh, is that what it "usually" means?


Yes.  Especially when it's you feeling the greed.



> Absolutely meaningless, as you haven't defined "need" or "deserve" yet.


No, that's just you telling another stupid lie.  Need and deserve are defined perfectly well in dictionaries, as is greed.  One can use language without defining all terms anew with each sentence.  Obviously.



> Need means "require", and "require" is qualified "_to a given objective, or purpose_".


The context is an individual person's needs -- i.e., what a person requires to survive and remain healthy -- because greed is an emotion experienced by an individual person.  You know this.



> I may not NEED a metric ton of rice for dinner, but I may _feel that I need_ ten tons of rice if I am storing up rice with the intent of preparing for a famine, or to feed a lot of people going into the future.


You know that is not need in the relevant context of an individual person's needs.  You know it, but you have consciously and deliberately decided to lie about it.



> I may not NEED a hundred thousand dollars THIS MONTH, not that it's any of your collectivist statist poop-pants concern, but I may NEED a hundred thousand dollars as part of my retirement savings.


Your "feeling" that you "need" something is not the same as actually needing it.  You know this.  You are just consciously and deliberately lying.  You always have to lie.  You know that, too.



> Who is going to establish the criteria used to judge "needs" and "deserves", you 'n yer brand-o-gubmint?


There is no need to establish them, as they are already well known.  You already know what the words mean, and you already know what a person needs, and what they deserve.



> Your thoughts about legal privilege and what it means to you: coming soon, to a woodshed near you.


I have identified the relevant facts, and you have to refuse to know them.  Simple.

----------


## Roy L

> The second half of the post was stupid, but since you're determined to own it... if the person who invented the English language can step forward and prove ownership, then we can start having conversations about what his fair share is.


We're talking about individual words, not the language.  We know who coined some of them.  Start paying royalties to Shakespeare's heirs.  Or are you a thieving parasite who doesn't respect other people's property rights?



> Property isn't granted by the state.


In some cases, it is.



> It's protected by the state, and sometimes reallocated by the state.


What "property" is a patent or copyright protecting?  They never existed until they were created by law.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The words that I type are indeed mine.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Nope.  They're in the public domain.


Not if he doesn't type them there. (setting aside for a moment your generic lay use of an actual legal term that has specific meaning)




> They can only be turned into private property by government fiat.


Until "public-ized", all new privately developed ideas, new knowledge or discoveries, by their nature _begin as private property_. Such bits of knowledge, if not openly shared, are called "secrets" - sometimes referred to as "trade secrets".  I have some of my own that have benefited me (and by extension my customers and clients) for years. I don't seek patent or copyright protection precisely because I don't see those as ANY kind of real protection anyway. Not to the average person of limited means.  That's because patent and copyright protection REQUIRE that those ideas and words which are protected by them be _made public_ (not in the "public domain", legally speaking). 

Like many owners of many firms, I opt to keep those ideas that give me competitive advantages completely out of the public domain.  There is nothing to prevent others from having these very same ideas, of course, or even placing them into the public domain themselves. But until that happens, they are my trade secrets - my property - my economic advantages - _alone_. The world at large is entitled to absolutely nothing, save the opportunity to pay for the fruits of my superior labors, as I seek to recoup (and even profit from) the costs of REAL WORK performed, and time, money and energy expended on research, experimentation and development of specific knowledge to aid me in my pursuits. That is not to give away to everyone (and specifically my competitors) for free so that Roy L's collectivist sensibilities can be pleased.  Those ideas, those secrets, appear only indirectly in the market as improved processes and products.  

That is how my ideas (which are typed, but only privately) are not only my property, but always were. They began that way. They were not "turned into" property by government fiat, or IP laws, but rather human nature, and the capacity of individuals to seek out and obtain competitive KNOWLEDGE advantages in a free market. And that "trade secret" process has been going on for thousands of years, and will continue to be practiced with or without IP laws. And nothing wrong with that at all.

----------


## Roy L

> People don't have to go into into debt to buy a home. They didn't historically.


But the modern monetary system is based on debt, so people have to be forced to borrow somehow.  Forcing them into debt as the only way to get off the treadmill of the productive, and onto the landowners' escalator that the treadmill powers, is as good a way as any.



> Its a pretty modern phenomenon.


It's a modern phenomenon because the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners has become so exorbitant that there is no other way for young people with families to buy a home.  The debt money system is there to put them on another treadmill.

----------


## idiom

> A tax on land rent cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to consumers, employees, suppliers, or anyone else.  It is paid exclusively by the landowner.


Where does the landowner get the money to pay rent?

What is fungibility?




> Wherever he likes.  If he wants to get it by using the land productively, he can do that.  If he just wants to rent it to someone else who will use it productively, he can do that.  If he wants to leave the land idle and pay the rent out of his other resources, he can do that.  Up to him.  He just can't deprive everyone else of the land and not compensate them.
> 
> Ability to be exchanged.  And your point would be...?


So... the 'landowner' has money coming in from customers, and money going out in land rent tax, but it is absolutely impossible that the money coming in is in any way related to the money going out?

----------


## idiom

> But the modern monetary system is based on debt, so people have to be forced to borrow somehow.  Forcing them into debt as the only way to get off the treadmill of the productive, and onto the landowners' escalator that the treadmill powers, is as good a way as any.
> 
> It's a modern phenomenon because the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners has become so exorbitant that there is no other way for young people with families to buy a home.  The debt money system is there to put them on another treadmill.


Why doesn't the young family buy land with cash?

----------


## Roy L

> My name is Angela, and if his heirs wanted society to pay them for his contributions, I'd support that.


Then you're a ninny.  Such claims of entitlement to live as a parasite on others are simply absurd, outrageous, and evil.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire.

One IP atrocity: the millions of people condemned to slow and agonizing death by AIDS because patent monopoly privileges prevented provision of cheaper treatments.

Are you really unable to understand that you are laying *millions of HUMAN SACRIFICES* on the altar of your Great God Property?  REALLY??



> You prefer to leech?


I am ENTITLED to my RIGHTS, one of which is the right to liberty.  The exercise of one's rights is not "leeching."  Forcibly removing others' rights to liberty in order to extort wealth from them, by contrast, IS leeching.



> Good lord, why should the man who wrote things down to entertain us actually get paid for the effort?


He was, and he never held a copyright in his life.  Which kinda proves you comprehensively wrong, doesn't it?



> That's stupid considering we can simply vote for the right to use his works for free.


We had that right without any votes.  It was government that removed it.

----------


## Roy L

> (ACtually, written works are indeed protected whether or not you apply for them. )


They have no property status apart from that granted by government.  They were never considered property in the whole history of the world until a few hundred years ago.

----------


## Roy L

> Who assumed that? Besides you, I mean.


Everyone, including Shakespeare.



> And if the law at the time didn't protect the works of the artists, then the law was wrong then.


Garbage.  It's forcibly removing people's rights to liberty that is wrong.  Duh.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> But the modern monetary system is based on debt, so people have to be forced to borrow somehow.  Forcing them into debt as the only way to get off the treadmill of the productive, and onto the landowners' escalator that the treadmill powers, is as good a way as any.


Half right, half bull$#@!.  The first part is the cause, the second part that you tacked on is a symptom, as people seek out ways to a) take advantage of the original cause, and b) avoid its adverse effects (thus creating new ones). 

The whole "landowner's escalator" was created AND FUELED by the modern monetary system (which is NOT so modern as many think, as currency debasement and fiat currencies are both ancient forms of corruption). 




> It's a modern phenomenon because the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners has become so exorbitant that there is no other way for young people with families to buy a home.  The debt money system is there to put them on another treadmill.


Nice try, with your ad nauseam leftist spin of a "welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners". Take the first treadmill away and the second one disappears, because without lots of free debt money continuously created, and with privately accumulated capital fully competing, _land is not a time-friendly investment at all_.  And we can completely ignore your precious megalopolis monstrosities like New York, Hong Kong and other mutant adverse side effects of a thoroughly debauched, debt-based monetary system, because they disperse into irrelevance under sound monetary policy in a perfectly competitive market as well.  With the money supply diffused and not centrally controlled by anyone, there is no longer a need for everyone to be so close to the artificial monetary spigots.

----------


## idiom

> Such claims of entitlement to live as a parasite on others are simply absurd, outrageous, and evil.


Oh that is to beautiful to let slide.

----------


## Roy L

> If we did that, in 10 years half of the population would again be paying rent to landlords, having long ago sold their land for booze and whores.


ROTFL!!  No, they wouldn't, because they couldn't get any money for "their" land any more than a hunter-gatherer could get money from his neighbor for "his" land.  He CAN'T SELL his right to use land any more than he can sell his right to vote, and aspiring landowners CAN'T BUY additional rights to use land for the same reason.

It is time for you to stop typing and start thinking.

----------


## Roy L

> "The rich" is a diverse group.  There's Steve Jobs, the creators of Instagram, and LeBron James.... then there's Ben Bernanke.


Ben Bernanke?  Try Hank Paulson.  Most of the super-duper uber-rich are scammers, rent seekers and parasites of one stripe or another, as I already showed.  And in most countries it's even worse than in the USA.



> In my experience the majority of "the rich" got there's the right way.


Nah.  "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

The greater the accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was acquired honestly.  I used to think Michael Dell was the model of a self-made billionaire.  Then I found out he has been using tremendous amounts of prison (i.e., slave) labor.  Dig into the sources of great fortunes, and you will find great crimes.  Take it to the bank.

----------


## Roy L

> It should be noted that Taiwan has a public debt of 40% of its GDP.


That must be one of the lowest in the industrialized world.

----------


## Roy L

> So... the 'landowner' has money coming in from customers, and money going out in land rent tax, but it is absolutely impossible that the money coming in is in any way related to the money going out?


The relation is that he is unable to get more coming in than the amount going out, because that is all the market is willing to pay.  If he could raise the rent, he would do so in the absence of the tax.  Why not?  If the market is willing to pay more, that just becomes the new land rent, and he still pays it all in tax.

----------


## Roy L

> Why doesn't the young family buy land with cash?


It's too expensive, because they have to pay the taxes that make the land more advantageous and thus more expensive.  The more taxes they have to pay, the more the land costs, and the less they can afford to pay cash for it.  See California under Proposition 13 for where that leads.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Nah.  "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac
> 
> The greater the accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was acquired honestly.  I used to think Michael Dell was the model of a self-made billionaire.  Then I found out he has been using tremendous amounts of prison (i.e., slave) labor.  Dig into the sources of great fortunes, and you will find great crimes.  Take it to the bank.


Does that include all the great Hong Kong fortunes, and can we take that to a Hong Kong bank as well? Or should we consider them exceptions to your Ballsack Rule, and continue to attribute those great fortunes instead to a lack of private landownership in Hong Kong?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> *...they have to pay the taxes that make the land more advantageous and thus more expensive...*


TFF!!!

----------


## idiom

> It's too expensive, because they have to pay the taxes that make the land more advantageous and thus more expensive.  The more taxes they have to pay, the more the land costs, and the less they can afford to pay cash for it.  See California under Proposition 13 for where that leads.


If its too expensive, how does debt help?

Better yet,




> *EVERY* resident citizen gets an *equal* individual land tax exemption for enough good land to live on.


a) precisely how much land is that?
b) ever heard of a home office?
c) If only the rich own homes (as you have previously argued) then why do they get an exemption?


What I think you are in fact trying to solve is an entitlement mentality and a lick of saving and diligence. There are homes in major cities in America available for very little. Even in the most exorbitant market a home should not exceed 3-4 times ones salary which is easy enough to save for in a few years, especially for a married couple.

----------


## idiom

> The relation is that he is unable to get more coming in than the amount going out, because that is all the market is willing to pay.  If he could raise the rent, he would do so in the absence of the tax.  Why not?  If the market is willing to pay more, that just becomes the new land rent, and he still pays it all in tax.


You are confusing margin compression and price equilibrium.

If adding the tax simply pushes the market equilibrium point up, then the tax has effectively been passed directly on. If the market equilibrium point won't go up then margin compression will wipe out swathes of the supply until margins return on a lower cost structure. And the rent has been passed on.

If the tax is hiked high enough in the belief that business and markets do not account for operating costs and market cannot bear more then supply will end.

Landowning is the same as any other business, if the margins are too small you change business.

----------


## idiom

Also relevant:

----------


## Weston White

No, such would merely result in reciprocally increasing that very deficit.  The underlying problem is an ethically bankrupted system of government; over-taxation is but one symptom out of many; public awareness and veracious accountability is its prognosis.

----------


## Roy L

> Does that include all the great Hong Kong fortunes,


Most of them, certainly.



> and can we take that to a Hong Kong bank as well?


You can.



> Or should we consider them exceptions to your Ballsack Rule, and continue to attribute those great fortunes instead to a lack of private landownership in Hong Kong?


No, lack of landownership produces more broad-based prosperity, not great concentrations of wealth.  But HK offers lots of other opportunities for dishonest gain, so there are plenty of billionaires there.

----------


## awake

> Ben Bernanke?  Try Hank Paulson.  Most of the super-duper uber-rich are scammers, rent seekers and parasites of one stripe or another, as I already showed.  And in most countries it's even worse than in the USA.
> 
> Nah.  "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac
> 
> The greater the accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was acquired honestly.  I used to think Michael Dell was the model of a self-made billionaire.  Then I found out he has been using tremendous amounts of prison (i.e., slave) labor.  Dig into the sources of great fortunes, and you will find great crimes.  Take it to the bank.


RoyL... From what I can gather you would use government violence to expropriate any person who had more money than you because it is an automatic crime that they have wealth; or as you quote "great fortunes = great crimes". Your position is envy parading as "justice", which it clearly is not. Have wealthy men used government to get rich. Yes. Has every wealthy man done this? Absolutely not. To write off everyone who has money as unjustly acquiring it and implying that it be confiscated, is in itself unjust.

If you expropriate the justly rich along with the 'rich by government types', you collapse the market system. You have to be a bit more surgical about it. Cut the government root and the unjustly rich wither on the branch for this is thier means an method...Monopoly government is the mechanism of corruption - one starts there.

"Taxes avoided by the rich could pay off the deficit" put another way is, 'if I have spent more than I have, its OK to take the difference from some one else' whether they agree or not. The case for theft can be made many ways, this is just one of them

----------


## Roy L

> If its too expensive, how does debt help?


You can pay for it over time while using it.  You know this.  Why pretend you don't?



> a) precisely how much land is that?


That depends on how advantageous government, the community and nature have made it.  In the middle of a city where publicly provided services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities abound, it might be very little: a tiny fraction of the land under an apartment building, say.  In the country, where the gifts of nature are more important and access to government services and infrastructure more difficult, it might be hundreds or even thousands of acres.



> b) ever heard of a home office?


Yes.  Ever considered saying something relevant?



> c) If only the rich own homes (as you have previously argued)


I haven't argued that.  You are just lying.  All apologists for landowner privilege lie.  That is a natural law of the universe.  There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.  NEVER.



> then why do they get an exemption?


They are human beings (more or less) and thus have the same rights to liberty as anyone else.  The rich get the universal individual income tax exemption, don't they?



> What I think you are in fact trying to solve is an entitlement mentality and a lick of saving and diligence.


No, I am trying to solve the problem of people's rights to liberty having been removed for the unearned profit of private landowners.  It is not a lack of saving and diligence that has put them on the treadmill.  It is the institution of landowner privilege that steals their rightful earnings and gives the money to landowners in return for nothing.



> There are homes in major cities in America available for very little.


Only in the ones where opportunity is scarce, services and infrastructure decrepit, and living conditions unpleasant and/or unsafe.



> Even in the most exorbitant market a home should not exceed 3-4 times ones salary


I live in an area where it is 30-40 times.



> which is easy enough to save for in a few years, especially for a married couple.


Nope.  That's a fabrication.  Their earnings are constantly being taken from them and given to landowners, making the land more expensive even as it takes away their ability to save up and buy it.  The more they earn, the more is stolen from them and given to landowners.  The more the landowners are given for idly owning the land, the less reason they have to sell, and the higher the price they will demand.  The productive young married couple are forced to pay for government *twice* so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.  By earning enough to save $1K, they have to pay another $1K in taxes, and the price of the land rises another $1K so they are no closer to being able to buy it.  That is the treadmill that powers the landowners' escalator.  The landless young couple effectively have no way of ever saving up enough money to buy a home.  The harder they toil on the treadmill, the faster it goes, the faster they have to run just to stay in the same place -- and the faster the landowners' escalator raises the price of land up out of reach.

----------


## awake

"landowner privilege", could you please define what you mean by this?

 "All apologists for landowner privilege lie.  That is a natural law of the universe." What?

Could you define property rights as they should be in your just world?

----------


## Roy L

> RoyL... From what I can gather you would use government violence to expropriate any person who had more money than you because it is an automatic crime that they have wealth;


No.  You are just lying about what I have plainly written.  You made a conscious, deliberate decision to lie.  You're lying.  Stop lying.



> or as you quote "great fortunes = great crimes".


It doesn't take a great fortune to have more money than me.  I have stated explicitly NOT that no great fortune has ever been obtained honestly, but that the larger the fortune, the less likely it is to have been obtained honestly.  IMO anyone who has read very extensively in the business section of the newspaper knows that is true.



> Your position is envy parading as "justice",


No, that is a lie.  I have said nothing that could honestly be interpreted as envious.  To accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries is the most deeply evil act any human being can commit.  It is the pure, distilled essence of absolute, Satanic evil.



> which it clearly is not.


It clearly is, and you are just lying about what I have plainly written.



> Have wealthy men used government to get rich. Yes. Has every wealthy man done this? Absolutely not.


See my analysis of the 21 "self-made" billionaires listed by Forbes.  I found that four of them could have made their money honestly.



> To write off everyone who has money as unjustly acquiring it and implying that it be confiscated, is in itself unjust.


Which might be why I have done no such thing, and you had to make a conscious, deliberate decision to lie about what I have plainly written.



> If you expropriate the justly rich along with the 'rich by government types', you collapse the market system.


That is why I don't propose to tax, let alone expropriate, the justly rich.  



> You have to be a bit more surgical about it.


I propose to be a *lot* more surgical, by taxing privilege and leaving rightful property alone.  I would rather tax a poor man's land than a rich man's honest earnings, because the land represents opportunity the poor man is taking from the community, while the rich man's earnings represent what he contributed TO the community.



> Cut the government root and the unjustly rich wither on the branch...


Nope.  That claim is disproved by the massive fortunes of the unjustly rich in countries with small and weak governments.



> Monopoly government is the mechanism of corruption - one starts there.


No.  It is landowner privilege that is the basic engine of government corruption.  If you are familiar with local politics almost anywhere in the world, you know that is true.  Until you solve the problem of landowner privilege, you have to pay for government twice, AND you make it necessary for government to spend a lot of money rescuing the landless from the effects of landowner privilege.  Why do you, who rail against government, want to pay for *MORE* government, and pay for it *TWICE*?

----------


## awake

> No.  You are just lying about what I have plainly written.  You made a conscious, deliberate decision to lie.  You're lying.  Stop lying.
> 
> It doesn't take a great fortune to have more money than me.  I have stated explicitly NOT that no great fortune has ever been obtained honestly, but that the larger the fortune, the less likely it is to have been obtained honestly.  IMO anyone who has read very extensively in the business section of the newspaper knows that is true.
> 
> No, that is a lie.  I have said nothing that could honestly be interpreted as envious.  To accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries is the most deeply evil act any human being can commit.  It is the pure, distilled essence of absolute, Satanic evil.
> 
> It clearly is, and you are just lying about what I have plainly written.
> 
> See my analysis of the 21 "self-made" billionaires listed by Forbes.  I found that four of them could have made their money honestly.
> ...


Your methods are arbitrary and flaky at best, you are advocating we tax certain rich people. How? We apply the RoyL method to define who gets to keep their wealth and who gets to pay. Everyone else who disagrees is a)a liar or b) an apologist for the land privileged.

----------


## idiom

> You can pay for it over time while using it.  You know this.  Why pretend you don't?


Saving first and then paying for land is far cheaper. If this is impossible how can paying debt and interest be easier?




> I live in an area where it is 30-40 times.


Move? Why choose to live somewhere like that? Paying more than 3-4 times ones salary is irresponsible. Just give your money away. rofl. The law of supply and demand is suggesting strongly you look for a different supply.




> Only in the ones where opportunity is scarce, services and infrastructure decrepit, and living conditions unpleasant and/or unsafe.


Are they lacking in rich landowners to make it safe? Why are low property values associated with a complete set of infrastructure?




> That depends on how advantageous government, the community and nature have made it. In the middle of a city where publicly provided services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities abound, it might be very little: a tiny fraction of the land under an apartment building, say. In the country, where the gifts of nature are more important and access to government services and infrastructure more difficult, it might be hundreds or even thousands of acres.


One more time, with more 'precisely'?




> I haven't argued that. You are just lying. All apologists for landowner privilege lie. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be. NEVER.


An interesting accusation. I take it then that you think the poor are landowning parasites too?

----------


## idiom

> I would rather tax a poor man's land than a rich man's honest earnings, because the land represents opportunity the poor man is taking from the community, while the rich man's earnings represent what he contributed TO the community.


That is a very interesting position.

Taking even the little the poor have and re-distributing it to the rich. Yes this will create Justice!

I wonder why people object to your vision of a world where the poor can be taxed to reimburse the wealthy for not providing the opportunity for them to live in their hovels.




> That claim is disproved by the massive fortunes of the unjustly rich in countries with small and weak governments.... It is landowner privilege that is the basic engine of government corruption.


Geonomists may disagree with you there...




> 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.

----------


## Roy L

> "landowner privilege", could you please define what you mean by this?


Landowner privilege has two main components:

1) the legal entitlement to profit from the forcible removal of others' liberty to use the land, and

2) the legal entitlement to charge others full market value for access to the government services and infrastructure that their taxes already paid for -- i.e., effectively to pocket other people's taxes.



> "All apologists for landowner privilege lie.  That is a natural law of the universe." What?


The only way to rationalize, justify and excuse evil is by lying.  Landowner priviege is the greatest evil in the history of the world.  Therefore, apologists for landowner privilege have to lie.  ALWAYS.



> Could you define property rights as they should be in your just world?


All valid rights are founded on the non-deprivation principle: people have a right to what they would have if others did not forcibly deprive them of it: chiefly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.  Rightful property therefore consists of the fruits of one's labor (including the fruits of others' labor obtained by consensual transactions), which others would not otherwise be at liberty to use, and that others cannot take or possess without depriving one of what he would otherwise be at liberty to use.

----------


## Roy L

> Saving first and then paying for land is far cheaper.


No, it is not, because the land is rising in value -- roughly in pace with GDP -- while you save up for it.  That is why almost all land purchases are made using mortgage debt.



> If this is impossible how can paying debt and interest be easier?


Because the price doesn't keep rising while you are paying it.



> Move? Why choose to live somewhere like that?


Because it is extremely desirable.  Do you really think you know better than the market?



> Paying more than 3-4 times ones salary is irresponsible.


Nonsense.  It depends on how productively you will use the location.



> Just give your money away. rofl.


I am FORCED to give it away, in taxes, to landowners.  That is why land costs so much: its owner is privileged to pocket other people's taxes.



> The law of supply and demand is suggesting strongly you look for a different supply.


No, it is not.  It is suggesting that you do not know any economics.



> Are they lacking in rich landowners to make it safe?


Rich landowners don't make a place safe, as Pakistan and many other highly unsafe societies based on landowner privilege prove.  Rather, a place being safe (and having other publicly provided advantages) is what makes its landowners rich.  You're just spewing stupid, dishonest nonsense.



> Why are low property values associated with a complete set of infrastructure?


They aren't.  Why are you lying about what I have plainly written?



> One more time, with more 'precisely'?


It depends, very precisely, on how advantageous land at the citizen's chosen location is.  At a rough cut, call it the amount of land there that is worth 20% of per capita land value for the relevant jurisdiction.



> An interesting accusation. I take it then that you think the poor are landowning parasites too?


The poor rarely own land, and even more rarely do they own more than the fair share they need to sustain themselves (~20% of per capita land value).  You know this.  See how you have to lie?

The dishonesty of your posts is palpable.

----------


## Roy L

> That is a very interesting position.


You are just unaccustomed to it because it is factual.



> Taking even the little the poor have and re-distributing it to the rich. Yes this will create Justice!


You again prove that you have to lie about what I have plainly written.  Taxes are redistributed to landowners, not the rich, so what the poor landowner pays in taxes he is getting back as a landowner.  The rich just happen to also own most of the land, which is why they get rapidly richer without lifting a finger, while productive working people toil on the treadmill and get nowhere.  



> I wonder why people object to your vision of a world where the poor can be taxed to reimburse the wealthy for not providing the opportunity for them to live in their hovels.


You again prove that you have to lie.  The advantageous opportunity of which the landowner (rich or poor) deprives others (rich or poor) is to use the land, not the improvements thereon, and the tax a poor landowner pays is not used to reimburse the wealthy, it comes right back to him in the desirable government services and infrastructure he is enabled to access through using the land -- and which typically give it its value.



> Geonomists may disagree with you there...


No; despite the explosive growth Taiwan has achieved by taxing land, there is still ample landowner privilege there to feed corruption.  The Chinese cultural traditions of political corruption and landowner privilege are extremely deep and ingrained.  30 years of Maoism in the PRC barely scratched them, as China's history in the last 30 years has proved.

----------


## Roy L

> Your methods are arbitrary and flaky at best,


No, my methods are supported by many of the greatest minds that have ever lived, including Nobel laureates in economics like Milton Friedman.



> you are advocating we tax certain rich people. How?


By taxing the privileges that made them rich, keep them rich, and enable them to get rapidly richer without lifting a productive finger.



> We apply the RoyL method to define who gets to keep their wealth and who gets to pay.


Because if we can find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, we can distinguish just from unjust wealth and recover the latter from those who have taken it.  Right.



> Everyone else who disagrees is a)a liar or b) an apologist for the land privileged.


Your b is a subset of a, so it's not either/or.

----------


## Roy L

> You are confusing margin compression and price equilibrium.


No, you are confusing the economics of elastic supply with those of fixed supply.



> If adding the tax simply pushes the market equilibrium point up, then the tax has effectively been passed directly on.


But a tax on land can't do that, because supply is fixed.  The owner can't affect demand, and he can't affect supply, so he can't affect price.



> If the market equilibrium point won't go up then margin compression will wipe out swathes of the supply


Oh, really?  Taxing land will cause it to fall into the sea?  Or do you think that the more expensive it gets to hold land vacant, the more of it landowners will hold vacant?

It is time for you to stop typing and start thinking.



> until margins return on a lower cost structure. And the rent has been passed on.


See above.  Economists have known for 200 years that a tax on land cannot be passed on.



> If the tax is hiked high enough in the belief that business and markets do not account for operating costs and market cannot bear more then supply will end.


You mean the earth will vanish?  Or will landowners consent to pay the entire cost of government out of their other assets in return for the privilege of keeping land vacant and unused?

Think hard.



> Landowning is the same as any other business,


Oh, really?  Then what is its product?  It can't be the land, as that was already there, ready to use, with no help from the landowner or anyone else.

Right about now your mouth should be hanging open, as you realize what a fool you have made of yourself.



> if the margins are too small you change business.


Ah.  But that is exactly what we *want* landowners to do: change their business and stop robbing us.  I have posted this many times before, and no one has ever been able to refute it.  You won't, either:

*The Bandit*

_Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, and he can even pretend that his profits come from his "property rights," not just a special government-issued license. But in fact, he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is his "business" any different now that he is a landowner?

And for that matter, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed? Does their "free choice" to use the pass make the robbery a consensual transaction?

If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at "liberty" to choose which bandit robs them somehow make the bandits' enterprises a competitive industry in a free market?_

----------


## Roy L

> Not if he doesn't type them there. (setting aside for a moment your generic lay use of an actual legal term that has specific meaning)


The legal term comes from the factual concept.



> Until "public-ized", all new privately developed ideas, new knowledge or discoveries, by their nature _begin as private property_.


It is when they are in someone else's mind that they can't be your property.  As much as you would like to, you can't own the contents of other people's minds, sorry.



> Like many owners of many firms, I opt to keep those ideas that give me competitive advantages completely out of the public domain.


And that's your prerogative.  But once it is in someone else's mind, your exclusive possession of it is at an end.



> There is nothing to prevent others from having these very same ideas, of course, or even placing them into the public domain themselves.


BINGO!  That is what makes it property and not privilege: it has NO EFFECT on others' exercise of their rights to liberty.



> But until that happens, they are my trade secrets - my property - my economic advantages - _alone_. The world at large is entitled to absolutely nothing, save the opportunity to pay for the fruits of my superior labors, as I seek to recoup (and even profit from) the costs of REAL WORK performed, and time, money and energy expended on research, experimentation and development of specific knowledge to aid me in my pursuits.


Like any other valid property that others have to pay for, but unlike privilege, does not deprive them of any liberty they would otherwise have.



> That is not to give away to everyone (and specifically my competitors) for free so that Roy L's collectivist sensibilities can be pleased.


You again choose deliberately to lie about what I have plainly written.



> Those ideas, those secrets, appear only indirectly in the market as improved processes and products.  
> 
> That is how my ideas (which are typed, but only privately) are not only my property, but always were.


Because your exclusive possession and use of them does not deprive others of any liberty they would otherwise have.  If you just take a powder, others are no better off.  Others ARE better off if the owners of land titles, patents, copyrights, etc. just take a powder.  That is the difference between rightful property and unjust privilege.



> They began that way. They were not "turned into" property by government fiat, or IP laws, but rather human nature, and the capacity of individuals to seek out and obtain competitive KNOWLEDGE advantages in a free market. And that "trade secret" process has been going on for thousands of years, and will continue to be practiced with or without IP laws. And nothing wrong with that at all.


And I agree.  Just don't imagine you can sell knowledge and ideas to the public, but still keep them private.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> But a tax on land can't do that, because supply is fixed. The owner can't affect demand, and he can't affect supply, so he can't affect price.


The price of land is still set by supply and demand.  The supply is not the total supply of land in the world (which does not change unless say a volcano rises out of the sea or waters are drained to create more) but the supply available for purchase and the demand for purchasing that land at a given point in time.  Values of land go up and down all of the time. 




> See above. Economists have known for 200 years that a tax on land cannot be passed on.


Only if you have prefectly elastic demand can taxes not be passed on.  That means that the demand for land go to zero if the price is raised at all. Property taxes get added on to the rent if the owner leases the land out.  Otherwise, at least some if not all of the taxes can be passed along. If I am renting out the land for say apartments, I will add the tax to the rent I charge.  If I am a business or farm producing something, I will add it to the costs of whatever it is I am producing.  If I am simply owning and occupying it, then yes, I am unable to pass the tax along. But I will include the costs of the tax in my decision to purchase or not to purchase the land and see if I can afford it or not. In that sense, though, the tax is again passed along. It lowers the price I would be willing to pay for the land since it is added to my costs. If, for example, I decided I could afford to pay $1000 a month towards a place to live and wanted to buy one, without a tax, I would look at property where my payments for ownership were $1000.  But if there was a monthly tax of $200, then I am only going to consider properties where my costs would be $800 instead of $1000. 




> If the tax is hiked high enough in the belief that business and markets do not account for operating costs and market cannot bear more then supply will end.
> 			
> 		
> 
> You mean the earth will vanish? Or will landowners consent to pay the entire cost of government out of their other assets in return for the privilege of keeping land vacant and unused?


You are right- the supply will not disappear- if taxes get too high the demand for owning land will go down. The other side of the supply/ demand equation. It could effect sellers too- if the demand is less, they may have to lower their asking price or take the property off the market (which reduces the supply- the supply available for purchase at a given moment).

----------


## Steven Douglas

*WARNING - SLIPPERY DISHONEST SEMANTICS ALERT*




> But a tax on land can't do that, because supply is fixed.  The owner can't affect demand, and he can't affect supply, so he can't affect price.


Roy employs an extremely (but conveniently) distorted, intellectually dishonest view of both supply and demand where land is concerned, but especially supply. 

When referring to land, Roy doesn't use the economic definition of supply.  The actual economic definition of supply is *the quantity (area/parcel/etc.,) that sellers are able and willing to sell, at a given price (over a given period of time)*.  All those variables are required to determine "supply".

When Roy refers to supply, he means _the total land area in existence_, all of which is presumed to be "on the market", with all owners presumed to be sellers, all of which are both able _and willing_ to sell.  Roy uses this twisted, non-economic semantic shell game reasoning to argue for inelasticity and absolute fixity of land supply, and this is why, he argues, that owners/sellers "can't affect supply" -- even though the actual *economic supply* of land is anything but inelastic, and sellers can and do affect supply, and ultimately market price, individually and in the aggregate, every day in the real estate market. 

Roy's "inelastic supply" reasoning _could be_ said to be logically consistent, or have some bearing on reality, IF you begin from his presumption of the state as the lone "seller" (of LVT rental contracts). Then you are referring only to the "RENTAL" supply, with the state having arrogated all land/land rents as common property under a geoist regime.  Under that paradigm, and assuming no minimum floor price is in effect, and assuming literally ALL land was indeed available to the market, land 'rental' supply could (in theory) be considered truly inelastic, with a supply curve that is perfectly vertical, as that is a case where the "seller" (the state) is willing to rent/sell/make all land available (for rent) to the market -- at any (LVT) price over any period of time.

----------


## awake

> No, my methods are supported by many of the greatest minds that have ever lived, including Nobel laureates in economics like Milton Friedman.
> 
> By taxing the privileges that made them rich, keep them rich, and enable them to get rapidly richer without lifting a productive finger.
> 
> Because if we can find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, we can distinguish just from unjust wealth and recover the latter from those who have taken it.  Right.
> 
> Your b is a subset of a, so it's not either/or.


Why tax a privilege? As if that can even be done. Why not abolish it? 

Milton Friedman is great because he won a Nobel? Obama did too. Milton Friedman liked government economic intervention which is why I don't like Milton Friedman. He was a statist and inflationist which makes him a false free market defender - a poser. You should get a better economist to agree with.

Your system doesn't make any practical sense and endorses the idea of taxation as a means to correct government privilege; treating the symptom of the problem and ignoring the cause. You have a difficulty in explaining your plan because its not any plan that is compatible with economic liberty at all. 

This forum is about getting the government out of our lives; you are recommending ways to employ it. Liberty will not come from government, it is a irrefutable contradiction.

----------


## flynn

Roy L just never realizes that the government is the biggest corporation of them all. Please stop wasting your time educating him.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> *WARNING - SLIPPERY DISHONEST SEMANTICS ALERT*
> 
> 
> 
> Roy employs an extremely (but conveniently) distorted, intellectually dishonest view of both supply and demand where land is concerned, but especially supply. 
> 
> When referring to land, Roy doesn't use the economic definition of supply.  The actual economic definition of supply is *the quantity (area/parcel/etc.,) that sellers are able and willing to sell, at a given price (over a given period of time)*.  All those variables are required to determine "supply".
> 
> When Roy refers to supply, he means _the total land area in existence_, all of which is presumed to be "on the market", with all owners presumed to be sellers, all of which are both able _and willing_ to sell.  Roy uses this twisted, non-economic semantic shell game reasoning to argue for inelasticity and absolute fixity of land supply, and this is why, he argues, that owners/sellers "can't affect supply" -- even though the actual *economic supply* of land is anything but inelastic, and sellers can and do affect supply, and ultimately market price, individually and in the aggregate, every day in the real estate market. 
> ...


Take it away, Henry George:



> That taxes levied upon Land Values, or, to use the politico-economic term, taxes levied upon rent, do not fall upon the user of land, and cannot be transferred by the landlord to the tenant is conceded by all economists of reputation. However much they may dispute as to other things, there is no dispute upon this point. Whatever flimsy reasons any of them may have deemed it expedient to give why the tax on rent should not be more resorted to, they all admit that the ‘taxation of rent merely diminishes the profits of the landowner, cannot be shifted on the user of land, cannot add to prices, nor check production.
> 
>      Not to multiply authorities, it will be sufficient to quote John Stuart Mill. He says (Section 2, Chapter 3, Book 5, “Principles of Political Economy”) “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 unfavorable 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.” 
> 
>      The reason of this will be clear to everyone who has grasped the accepted theory of rent—that theory to which the name of Ricardo has been given, and which, as John Stuart Mill says, has but to be understood to be proved. And it will be clear to everyone who will consider a moment, even if he has never before thought of the cause and nature of rent. *The rent of land represents a return to ownership over and above the return which is sufficient to induce use—it is a premium paid for permission to use. To take, in taxation, a part or the whole of this premium in no way affects the incentive to use or the return to use; in no way diminishes the amount of land there is to use, or makes it more difficult to obtain it for use. Thus there is no way in which a tax upon rent or Land Values can be transferred to the user. Whatever the State may demand of this premium simply diminishes the net amount which ownership can get for the use of land, or the price it can demand as purchase money, which is, of course, rent or the expectation of rent, capitalized.*


Emphasis mine.  This isn't rocket science.  Taxing land will not reduce its supply, nor will it increase demand.  The owner of the land will bear the full burden of the tax.  Hey Henry, can you give a hypothetical?




> Here, for instance, is a piece of land that has a value—let it be where it may. Its rent, or value, is the highest price that anyone will give for it—it is a bonus which the man who wants to use the land must pay to the man who owns the land for permission to use it. Now, if a tax be levied on that rent or value, this in no wise adds to the willingness of anyone to pay more for the land than before; nor does it in any way add to the ability of the owner to demand more. To suppose, in fact, that such a tax could be thrown by landowners upon tenants is to suppose that the owners of land do not now get for their land all it will bring; is to suppose that, whenever they want to, they can put up prices as they please.


Ah, thanks.  As you can see from the though experiment, to suppose that landowners could pass on the LVT is to suppose that landowners are not getting all they can now for their land.  But generally, they are.  If a tax were to be assessed on their land -by value- the would simply get less, because there'd be no reason for buyers to pay more; the tax in no way adds to landowners' bargaining power.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Why tax a privilege? As if that can even be done. Why not abolish it?


Because the privilege of exclusive use of an area of land is necessary to our way of life.  To do away with private tenure of land would be to do away with fixed improvements.  Obviously, that's not beneficial to society.  The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.

----------


## erowe1

> The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.


And by "the rest of society," you mean a group of politicians who claim to represent society and to have the special right to allocate "society's" money on behalf of society, so as to satisfy various special interest groups that empower them?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> If, for example, I decided I could afford to pay $1000 a month towards a place to live and wanted to buy one, without a tax, I would look at property where my payments for ownership were $1000.  But if there was a monthly tax of $200, then I am only going to consider properties where my costs would be $800 instead of $1000.


Hmm.  Wouldn't that not only be the case for you, but also everyone else?  Whatever one was willing/able to pay for land, he'd now only be willing/able to pay that much less the tax burden.  

What effect do you suppose that would have on the prices landowners generally got for land?  It seems to me pretty obvious it would reduce -in fact come out of- prices.  Wouldn't we then say that the landowner bears the tax burden?  Wouldn't that parcel of land that would cost you $1000 actually sell for less than that, since all potential buyers -not just you- would have to factor in the additional tax burden?

Do you see now?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> And by "the rest of society," you mean a group of politicians who claim to represent society and to have the special right to allocate "society's" money on behalf of society, so as to satisfy various special interest groups that empower them?


No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money.  You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.

----------


## awake

> Because the privilege of exclusive use of an area of land is necessary to our way of life.  To do away with private tenure of land would be to do away with fixed improvements.  Obviously, that's not beneficial to society.  The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.


Wow... a RoyL clone just tagged in and is just as incoherent. Your system is bunk. Certain "unjust land owners" can and would become all landowners in your little tax package- politicians can not help themselves to such a low hanging fruit. And don't give me the government would never do that line...its a load of manure.

----------


## erowe1

> No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money.  You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.


If you're saying that it would be good to replace other taxes with a land value tax, I have no problem with that. If you're saying that an LVT would be a positive good, such that we're actually better off with politicians allocating the money they get from it, rather than letting the rest of us spend it how we want, then I couldn't possibly accept that.

----------


## awake

> No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money.  You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.


Here we go. ....politicians *are* the direct beneficiary of tax dollars along with the armies of departments and paid off cronies. The privilages are due to government guns and threats.

Where do they grow you guys...Your negative reps precede you.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Here we go. ....politicians *are* the direct beneficiary of tax dollars along with the armies of departments and paid off cronies. The privilages are due to government guns and threats.
> 
> Where do they grow you guys...Your negative reps precede you.


No, they're pretty much just not.  You can pretend otherwise, but there's really nothing to gain by it.  Choosing to hold a delusional world-view simply renders you incapable of solving any problems or even understanding them.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Wow... a RoyL clone just tagged in and is just as incoherent. Your system is bunk. Certain "unjust land owners" can and would become all landowners in your little tax package- politicians can not help themselves to such a low hanging fruit. And don't give me the government would never do that line...its a load of manure.


I won't give you that line, because I have no idea what you're even trying to say.  Doubtless, it's ill-conceived, whatever it is.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> This isn't rocket science.  Taxing land will not reduce its supply, nor will it increase demand.  The owner of the land will bear the full burden of the tax.


Thanks for your antiquated propaganda citations from Henry George (no authority here), rather than argue anything directly yourself.  You are certainly right that it is not rocket science. It is basic economics, which you also fail to understand, as you make the same fatal mistakes as Roy relating to supply and demand, even quoting Henry George in a way that suggests he made the same _truly basic mistakes_ as both of you.

Think about something: Why did you say "_reduce_" supply and "_increase_" demand, rather than simply "affect" either way?  If LVT removes incentive from land speculators to hold onto lands, that tax most certainly gives landowners an incentive to SELL (make more land available to the market), thus affecting an INCREASE in supply (as a market correction), which in turn affects market price, with a consequent downward pressure on land values on the whole. 

Thus, taxing land *affects* both supply and demand (but only if you're honest enough to use the actual economic definitions for each), and can indeed be passed onto others, like any other cost. 

Henry George wrote that LVT *"...in no way diminishes the amount of land there is to use..."* What does that mean, exactly? The "_amount of land there is to use_" is NOT the *economic supply*. 

So much for your appeals to Henry George.

----------


## awake

> No, they're pretty much just not.  You can pretend otherwise, but there's really nothing to gain by it.  Choosing to hold a delusional world-view simply renders you incapable of solving any problems or even understanding them.


Explain how politicians do not benefit from taxation? Since you won't, calling me names and implying I'm stupid is all you got.

----------


## flynn

> Because the privilege of exclusive use of an area of land is necessary to our way of life.  To do away with private tenure of land would be to do away with fixed improvements.  Obviously, that's not beneficial to society.  The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.


Look at the track record of that where government erecting agencies to protect the lesser privilege. How are the working out?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Thanks for your antiquated propaganda citations from Henry George (no authority here), rather than argue anything directly yourself.


Why argue it directly myself?  George is a better writer than I am.  There's nothing antiquated about it.  And you'll note he quotes Mill directly.  Though he could have equally easily quoted Ricardo or even Smith.




> You are certainly right that it is not rocket science. It is basic economics, which you also fail to understand, as you make the same fatal mistakes as Roy relating to supply and demand, even quoting Henry George in a way that suggests he made the same _truly basic mistakes_ as both of you.
> 
> Think about something: Why did you say "_reduce_" supply and "_increase_" demand, rather than simply "affect" either way?


Because reducing supply or increasing demand would increase prices, and thus -if they were an effect of the tax- allow landowners to pass the tax on (the increased prices would offset the tax burden somewhat).




> If LVT removes incentive from land speculators to hold onto lands, that tax most certainly gives landowners an incentive to SELL (make more land available to the market), thus affecting an INCREASE in supply (as a market correction), which in turn affects market price, with a consequent downward pressure on land values on the whole.


Initially, there'd probably be a reduction in prices, as speculators fled the market -that's true.  It's actually a point George made in the article I quoted.  But it's also irrelevant to the ability of landowners to pass on the tax.  It's nice that you bring it up, though: it'd be a massive benefit to society, as it would relieve an excessive and utterly unnecessary burden on production.




> Thus, taxing land *affects* both supply and demand (but only if you're honest enough to use the actual economic definitions for each), and can indeed be passed onto others, like any other cost.


Nope.  It doesn't decrease supply, nor increase demand, and thus cannot be passed on.  You are comprehensively wrong.




> Henry George wrote that LVT *"...in no way diminishes the amount of land there is to use..."* What does that mean, exactly? The "_amount of land there is to use_" is NOT the *economic supply*. 
> 
> So much for your appeals to Henry George.


Are you arguing that the LVT reduces the "economic supply" as defined by you?  If 'yes,' how?  If 'no,' you're not making any kind of relevant point.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Look at the track record of that where government erecting agencies to protect the lesser privilege. How are the working out?


I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Explain how politicians do not benefit from taxation? Since you won't, calling me names and implying I'm stupid is all you got.


  You mean other than the fact that their well-being is not tied to the volume of tax revenue?

----------


## erowe1

> You mean other than the fact that their well-being is not tied to the volume of tax revenue?


But their power is.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> But their power is.


Not really.  A Senator has pretty much the same power whether taxes are high or low.

----------


## awake

> You mean other than the fact that their well-being is not tied to the volume of tax revenue?


Their "well being" is directly tied to their ability to tax as much as they can and transfer that money to people and institutions that will preserve their positions of power.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Their "well being" is directly tied to their ability to tax as much as they can and transfer that money to people and institutions that will preserve their positions of power.


Wrong.  It has nothing to do with how much they tax.  Their power is a result of the position as an elected official, and who or what they try to levy taxes on is dependent on the will of the constituents that put them in power.

----------


## erowe1

> Not really.  A Senator has pretty much the same power whether taxes are high or low.


How do you figure? Is there some way they could have taken over Iraq if their revenue had been only 2% of the GDP?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> How do you figure? Is there some way they could have taken over Iraq if their revenue had been only 2% of the GDP?


Senators took over Iraq?!

----------


## erowe1

> Senators took over Iraq?!


Yes. They allocated the money that was used to do it. Money that otherwise would have been spent by free people on other much more productive things.

----------


## awake

> Wrong.  It has nothing to do with how much they tax.  Their power is a result of the position as an elected official, and who or what they try to levy taxes on is dependent on the will of the constituents that put them in power.


You are completely disconnected from reality. Taxes are used to sell the next tax. The more taxes politicians have the more they can buy off the people to go along with the next tax increase. Politicians or "elected officials" are simply sales men for government. The more money of ours they have the more buying off they can do.

So the absurd levels of taxation that exist today is because the people wanted it through their elected officials? Not because the elected officials simply use their office to loot the public?

----------


## awake

RoyL and Mattinthecrown,

You are arguing cryptic ideas and carrying on antagonistic quasi debates with multiple members..

You have negative reputations

You pretend you don't understand when some one clearly points out how ludicrous your positions are.

There is a term for this behavior...let me see, now what is it...hmm

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Senators took over Iraq?!


The Senators were merely instruments.  At the end of the day, we the people decided to go to Iraq.  The power to do so came from us.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> You are completely disconnected from reality. Taxes are used to sell the next tax. The more taxes politicians have the more they can buy off the people to go along with the next tax increase. Politicians or "elected officials" are simply sales men for government. The more money of ours they have the more buying off they can do.


If this were true, taxes would inexorably increase.  They don't, so it isn't.




> So the absurd levels of taxation that exist today is because the people wanted it through their elected officials? Not because the elected officials simply use their office to loot the public?


Correct, except for the absurd part.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> RoyL and Mattinthecrown,
> 
> You are arguing cryptic ideas and carrying on antagonistic quasi debates with multiple members..


The ideas are hardly cryptic.  Mainstream economists understand them, and many have explicitly advocated them.




> You have negative reputations


Some people don't like to be contradicted.




> You pretend you don't understand when some one clearly points out how ludicrous your positions are.


Example?

----------


## erowe1

> The Senators were merely instruments.  At the end of the day, we the people decided to go to Iraq.  The power to do so came from us.


No we didn't. The power to do so was stolen from us by force. We wouldn't have funded it voluntarily.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> No we didn't. The power to do so was stolen from us by force. We wouldn't have funded it voluntarily.


To the extent that's true (I'll agree it's a half-truth), politicians were merely the means; tools.  I'll suggest your understanding of society in general, and government in particular, puts the cart before the horse.  Like many who deem government to be bad, you fail to recognize that it is simply a means of achieving an end, and that, in general, democratic governments have enabled much better results for the common man than available alternatives.

The failure of our modern societies to structure our laws in such a way as to afford citizens equal rights leads to an imbalance of power, which in turn allows the privileged to use the government as a tool of coercion.  Chief among these failures is the state giving away the privilege of owning land, without compensation.  The resulting imbalance of wealth and power makes tragedies like Iraq an inevitability; it also begs for "solutions" to the problems it causes that will inevitably cause additional problems -the ultimate example being communism.

----------


## awake

> To the extent that's true (I'll agree it's a half-truth), politicians were merely the means; tools.  I'll suggest your understanding of society in general, and government in particular, puts the cart before the horse.  Like many who deem government to be bad, you fail to recognize that it is simply a means of achieving an end, and that, in general, democratic governments have enabled much better results for the common man than available alternatives.
> 
> The failure of our modern societies to structure our laws in such a way as to afford citizens equal rights leads to an imbalance of power, which in turn allows the privileged to use the government as a tool of coercion.  Chief among these failures is the state giving away the privilege of owning land, without compensation.  The resulting imbalance of wealth and power makes tragedies like Iraq an inevitability; it also begs for "solutions" to the problems it causes that will inevitably cause additional problems -the ultimate example being communism.


Democracy should be better recognized as a degeneration, not an improvement for mankind. The 20th century under democracy has been the bloodiest century in all mans history. It allows any immoral criminal the ability to enter government and systematically covet and confiscate the property of all other people. It is the current main driver of de-civilization through capital redistribution from producers (goods) to non producers (bads); destroying the former and fostering the latter.

You imply that you fear communism, but democracy is a soft form of it and will eventually bring about socialism if left to its design.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
> 
> The price of land is still set by supply and demand.
> 
> 
> No, it is set exclusively by demand, as supply is fixed.  This is crucial.


See? Roy is either a) off in pseudo-economics land, substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms, or b) speaking only of the state as the seller (of land rent levies).  Either way, the economic supply in the current land market is anything but fixed.

Which is it? As it turns out, Roy is a) substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms. To wit:




> No.  Supply is the total amount available to the market.  It is *NOT* the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell.  All the land people are using or could be using is part of the supply.


See? A total abandonment/ignorance of the economics definition of supply. Supply is NEITHER of Roy's FALSE CHOICES.  It is not "the total amount available to the market". That is simplistic, ill-defined, and flat out wrong, because he omits the REQUIRED variables of price and time.  Neither is it Roy's other pseudo-economic false choice strawman: "...the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell."

Supply is "the quantity (area in the case of land) a SELLER is *able and willing* to sell, at a given price, within a given period of time." 

Not all owners are sellers, because while they may be ABLE to sell, many are not WILLING to sell (at a given price, or within a given period of time), which means NONE of that can be included in supply (at that price, within that given period of time). That's using the actual economics definition of supply, not Roy's conveniently simplistic pseudo-economics definition. 

Roy's talking nothing but obfuscating gibberish. Pseudo-economics.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Democracy should be better recognized as a degeneration, not an improvement for mankind.


History proves that characterization false.




> The 20th century under democracy has been the bloodiest century in all mans history.


Because it's been the most prosperous.  The advances that it enabled also allowed advances in killing.




> It allows any immoral criminal the ability to enter government and systematically covet and confiscate the property of all other people. It is the current main driver of de-civilization through capital redistribution from producers (goods) to non producers (bads); destroying the former and fostering the latter.
> 
> You imply that you fear communism, but democracy is a soft form of it and will eventually bring about socialism if left to its design.


It will if the difference between privileges and rights is not recognized.  The question is: are you willing to recognize the difference?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> See? Roy is either a) off in pseudo-economics land, substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms, or b) speaking only of the state as the seller (of land rent levies).  Either way, the economic supply in the current land market is anything but fixed.
> 
> Which is it? As it turns out, Roy is a) substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> See? A total abandonment/ignorance of the economics definition of supply. Supply is NEITHER of Roy's FALSE CHOICES.  It is not "the total amount available to the market". That is simplistic, ill-defined, and flat out wrong, because he omits the REQUIRED variables of price and time.  Neither is it Roy's other pseudo-economic false choice strawman: "...the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell."


You forgot to explain how a tax on land value could or would decrease supply, as you define it.

Until you do so, you are talking nonsense.

----------


## awake

> History proves that characterization false.
> 
> 
> Because it's been the most prosperous.  The advances that it enabled also allowed advances in killing.
> 
> 
> It will if the difference between privileges and rights is not recognized.  The question is: are you willing to recognize the difference?


Oh please! Prosperity killed 200 million people last century and not individuals under the auspices of democracy using government...? And as if there are no democratically elected people acting criminal in office...Your eyes a sewn shut.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Oh please! Prosperity killed 200 million people last century and not individuals under the auspices of democracy using government...?


Let me put it this way: in the dark ages, there was no ability to kill that many people, and there were hardly that many people available to kill.




> And as if there are no democratically elected people acting criminal in office...Your eyes a sewn shut.


There's just no point here.  There's people who act criminally in all stations in life.

----------


## awake

Here is a point: you have not convinced any one here of the validity of your tax the privilege scheme. Thats a big fat fail in my book.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You forgot to explain how a tax on land value could or would decrease supply, as you define it.
> 
> Until you do so, you are talking nonsense.


The goalpost you moved is meaningless. The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof.  Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.  

You failed/forgot to explain how that was relevant, making the nonsense talk yours alone.

And that brings us to the Land Use Squeeze, and one of the reasons EcoWarriers(sic) and leftist greens are so enamored and supportive of LVT - because it artificially manipulates and herds whole societies into vertical monstrosities (thus countering the dreaded "urban sprawl").   Those who depend on land but want to avoid high taxes will use less land, will take less and build vertically instead, so that they can capture rents on all the capital improvements.  Meanwhile, the state can respond to lost revenues from diminishing land values in a number of ways, two of which are, a) a portion of the increased rental values of the vertical horrors constructed can be imputed as land value increases, and b) zoning and usage restrictions can be employed, withholding lands from specific markets, or from all markets altogether, which adds an addition artificial scarcity to the market supply, putting upward pressure on land values.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> The goalpost you moved is meaningless.


You're the one attempting to shift the goalposts.  The context of the discussion is about the landowners' ability to shift the burden of taxation onto others.  They can't, regardless of your objections, so your "point" is meaningless.  Your claim that George, Roy, myself, and others who understand economics have the definition of land wrong is meaningless, unless the definition you provide makes a meaningful distinction regarding the relevant point.  Unfortunately for you, it doesn't; regardless of whether we accept your definition or Roy's, the fact remains that the LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.




> The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof.


This is literal nonsense.  This neither applies to land, nor anything else.  No matter how much we choose to tax land, it will not make more land come into existence.




> Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.


Nope.  There's an obvious limit to the supply of land, however you choose to define it: there can never be more land in supply than the universe makes available, regardless of taxation.

Truly, this is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever encountered.  If you're making claims to be an honest agent, you should at least explicitly admit this error.




> You failed/forgot to explain how that was relevant, making the nonsense talk yours alone.


That's just false.  The context is very simple indeed.  Landowners cannot pass the LVT on to tenants.  That's the relevance.  It's understandable that you'd prefer to avoid the fact, but that's the fact.  Your claim is that we all have the economic definition of supply wrong, and our arguments are thus wrong; the problem is, your definition of supply doesn't change the relationship.  This is a catastrophic failure on your part.




> And that brings us to the Land Use Squeeze, and one of the reasons EcoWarriers(sic) and leftist greens are so enamored and supportive of LVT - because it artificially manipulates and herds whole societies into vertical monstrosities (thus countering the dreaded "urban sprawl").


Except it doesn't.  There's no incentive to build vertically under the LVT.




> Those who depend on land


IE, everyone.  Whether those who wish to use land pay a landowner or the government is irrelevant; the point is, one must pay to use land that is super-marginal.




> but want to avoid high taxes will use less land, will take less and build vertically instead, so that they can capture rents on all the capital improvements.


Which, of course, they do already.  How do you figure, when you've already admitted that more land would become available to those who wished to use it, that the desire to build vertically would increase?  This I must hear.  It's obvious you're talking garbage when you argue mutually exclusive points.  You claimed that the LVT would compel speculators to sell land, yet here you argue that the LVT would compel individuals to build vertically!  Which is it?!  Would the LVT make land more or less available for use?

Allow me to answer that for you:  it would allow more efficient use of land.  Sometimes that would mean skyscrapers, sometimes that would mean less intensive uses than are currently resorted to.  The point would be that any use, be it concentrated or otherwise, would tend to be more efficient than current usage.  The result: better allocation of resources: more prosperity.  Or to put it another way, we'd all be richer for less work.




> Meanwhile, the state can respond to lost revenues from diminishing land values in a number of ways, two of which are, a) a portion of the increased rental values of the vertical horrors constructed can be imputed as land value increases, and b) zoning and usage restrictions can be employed, withholding lands from specific markets, or from all markets altogether, which adds an addition artificial scarcity to the market supply, putting upward pressure on land values.


Lost revenues as compared to what?  The imposition of the LVT would reduce land values, but this would take place as the tax was imposed, or more likely, before: as it became clear the tax was going to be imposed, land values would be reduced accordingly.  The revenues would increase with increased production and population, just as they should with a reasonable tax base.  Land value is a nearly perfect tax base because its extent is commensurate with the society that creates it.  It automatically sets reasonable limits.


You just can't get anything right regarding LVT.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...the fact remains that the LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.


Bull$#@!.  It can and is, and that's easily proved. 

If a Perfectly Benevolent Landlord bought land for the sole purpose of allowing the poor to use his superior land at the lowest possible costs to themselves, and without any profits (or losses) to the landlord himself - just a pure break even - the MINIMUM COST that the landlord would need to *pass along*, or *SHIFT proportionately*, would be that cost levied by the land value tax itself.   

The second proof - the falsification of that bunk claim that land rents cannot be passed along or shifted to tenants:  It is possible for a landlord to make all LVT payments *without any other source of income besides rents from his tenants*.   How is that possible without the land rents being shifted to those tenants -- given that the tenants are the ONLY ONES producing anything in that particular scenario, and the only ones paying out any money at all?  Is the landlord "paying" that, or is he just acting as a go-between as he takes from the tenants and gives it over to the $#@!ing state!




> No matter how much we choose to tax land, it will not make more land come into existence.


Not so slippery fast.  We were talking about supply. You know, the actual economic definition of supply, which makes it *a price-dependent variable*, even with land. The entire amount of land in existence is not "the supply". They are not the same thing, remember? 

In the market/economic sense of supply, "_come into existence_" means "a given quantity is made available by a given seller at a given price over a given period of time".  That is based on FIVE specific variables (ability to sell, willingness to sell -- a given quantity, at a given price, over a given period of time).  That applies to anything (including land).




> Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.
> 			
> 		
> 
> There's an obvious limit to the supply of land, however you choose to define it: there can never be more land in supply than the universe makes available, regardless of taxation.


You're off on a wild tangent now.  I say "supply increases", and you say, "No sir! Not forever it doesn't! Not infinitely! Not more than the universe makes available!"

Let me clear this up so that you can untangle your brain and actually digest it.  

If an LVT of $ONE ZILLLION-GAZILLLION was levied (Land Rents times infinity), the "supply" of land, given that NOBODY could afford to pay the land rents, would be *100%*.  Supply can go to 100% in theory, but never beyond that.  And remember (VERY IMPORTANT, NEVER FORGET) that *supply is a function of price*, as well as quantity and time.  Nearly ALL supply (of anything) theoretically approaches 100% _of whatever is humanly available_ as the price approaches 100% _of whatever is humanly possible_.  So why feign poop-stupid and pretend that claims of infinite supply are being made? 




> There's no incentive to build vertically under the LVT.


Now you're being plain obtuse.  This is a catastrophic failure _on your part_. I can get 1,000 citations to support that claim -- right from LVT proponents who make that very claim as a reason in favor of the tax!  Here's just one from a single lazy Google search that you could have performed yourself (if you were interested in knowing anything about LVT, that is): 




> *[Recent LVT Endorsements]* 
> Incentive Taxation
> Center for the Study of Economics
> Land Value Taxation in Urban and Smart Growth
> Policy Discussion: Recent Developments From 1996-2004
> 
> Another effective tax incentive that can be used to encourage historic rehabilitation is the splitrate
> property tax, also known as the land-value or two-rate tax. The split-rate property tax takes
> the value of a piece of property and divides it into two parts-the value of the land and the value of
> ...


See that, Matt? LVT "_...promotes vertical, rather than horizontal, development..._"  A claim made countless times by LVT proponents. 




> You claimed that the LVT would compel speculators to sell land, yet here you argue that the LVT would compel individuals to build vertically! Which is it?!


You really are that daft, aren't you? They were not mutually exclusive propositions. In fact, many of the same speculators who would be selling land would be the same ones condensing their holdings so that they can build vertically.  Was that really that hard for you to grasp?  Did you really, honestly see that as an either/or proposition? 

I guess you can't get anything right with LVT, Matt. That's the trouble with being a blind-faith supporter of something you obviously don't fully understand.

----------


## idiom

Hang on a moment. If we are talking about land being special because it has a fixed physical supply (as opposed to economic supply) then everything else in fixed physical supply is subject to the same arguments.

Like the rare elements in a cell phone. Cell phone users are holding them hostage and denying their use to anyone else.

Or shall we go simpler with Copper. The LVT arguments get pretty quickly to the idea that we should be paying rent to the 'community' for all the copper one is using.

This is all beside the point that if you forced someone to pay vast sums of money for land, they will just abandon the land and move elsewhere.

The only thing LVT does is punish resource utilisation. This will inevitably lead to a bubble economy that is without industries that use resources heavily. See Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Alternatively people will simply game the system. Wither they will sell land back and forth for $1 and game the value or they will game exemptions and put a flor of apartments at the base or above every business so that the land gains residence exemption.

The losers are anything creating real wealth, like mines or heavy industry. They will pack up and leave.

----------


## idiom

> No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money.  You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.


Well shall we examine long standing examples of LVT and where the money ends up?




> 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.

----------


## idiom

> No, it is not, because the land is rising in value -- roughly in pace with GDP -- while you save up for it.  That is why almost all land purchases are made using mortgage debt.


What is sad is how close you are and yet so far from understanding the actual problem you are trying to solve.

----------


## Roy L

> Why tax a privilege?


It corrects a market failure.



> As if that can even be done.


It can definitely be done.



> Why not abolish it?


In the case of land, the privilege is necessary to sustain a modern economy dependent on investment in fixed improvements.  In a hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding economy, it would indeed be possible to abolish it.



> Milton Friedman is great because he won a Nobel?


You don't win a Nobel being a fool.



> Obama did too. Milton Friedman liked government economic intervention which is why I don't like Milton Friedman.


He was not great because you don't like him?



> He was a statist


That is nothing but a meaningless cuss-word.



> and inflationist which makes him a false free market defender - a poser.


No, you are just hurling stupid and ignorant accusations with no basis in fact.



> You should get a better economist to agree with.


LOL!  You wouldn't know the difference between an economist and a bootblack.



> Your system doesn't make any practical sense


It has worked beautifully in practice, even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read.



> and endorses the idea of taxation as a means to correct government privilege;


??  Of course.  How else should we pay for government spending but by recovering the value it creates?  The alternative is confiscating the value private producers create and giving it to landowners in return for nothing.  THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.



> treating the symptom of the problem and ignoring the cause.


Lie.  It fully accounts for the cause.



> You have a difficulty in explaining your plan


No, I do not.  I explain it clearly and simply.



> because its not any plan that is compatible with economic liberty at all.


Another stupid lie.  It is the *only* way to achieve economic liberty, because it is the only way to avoid paying for government twice in order to give a welfare subsidy to landowners.



> This forum is about getting the government out of our lives;


No, it is not.  If it was, it would be called the "Meeza Hatesa Gubmint and Somalia Is Utopia" forum.



> you are recommending ways to employ it.


I am indeed.



> Liberty will not come from government, it is a irrefutable contradiction.


No, that's just your infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" mantra, and has no basis in fact, logic, or history.  Government is the ONLY POSSIBLE means to secure liberty, because "anarchy is the rule of a thousand tyrants."

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Remember?

----------


## Roy L

> What is sad is how close you are and yet so far from understanding the actual problem you are trying to solve.


I have proved you have no understanding whatever of the relevant economics.  You have simply recited anti-economic howler after anti-economic howler -- when you weren't lying about what I have plainly written, that is.

----------


## Roy L

> Well shall we examine long standing examples of LVT and where the money ends up?


You merely prove your ignorance again.  The KMT's war chest is a microscopic fraction of the revenue Taiwan's LVT has raised, and the island's explosive growth and broadly distributed prosperity prove the money almost all ends up in the hands of the productive who earned it -- conspicuously UNlike societies that don't use LVT.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Hang on a moment. If we are talking about land being special because it has a fixed physical supply (as opposed to economic supply) then everything else in fixed physical supply is subject to the same arguments.


Such confusion.

Read....
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lan...20828-240.html

_"2.   Land and capital are not mutually convertible.   (Substitution is another matter, considered later.)   Capital is convertible into any other kind of capital each time it turns over.   With each turnover it is 100% fungible.   Land is not convertible even into other land, and certainly not into capital."_

----------


## idiom

> You merely prove your ignorance again.  The KMT's war chest is a microscopic fraction of the revenue Taiwan's LVT has raised, and the island's explosive growth and broadly distributed prosperity prove the money almost all ends up in the hands of the productive who earned it -- conspicuously UNlike societies that don't use LVT.


Ah lets examine that broadly distributed prosperity...




> The policies of the Kuomintang after 1945 (LVT Land Reforms) 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."

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I have proved you have no understanding whatever of the relevant economics.  You have simply recited anti-economic howler after anti-economic howler -- when you weren't lying about what I have plainly written, that is.


He tells himself lies and believes them. When proven wrong, he then attempts to justify his misconception and errors by more lies.  Childish really.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic,


Are aliens making planet earth bigger?




> And that brings us to the Land Use Squeeze, and one of the reasons EcoWarriers(sic) and leftist greens are so enamored and supportive of LVT - because it artificially manipulates and herds whole societies into vertical monstrosities (thus countering the dreaded "urban sprawl").


Only poor planning does that likes in the UK, where only 7.5% of the land mass is settled.  Geonomics, using LVT does the opposite. It makes the best use of land using a true free-market.  And stops freeloaders.




> Those who depend on land but want to avoid high taxes will use less land, will take less and build vertically instead,


Such fanatsy.  Geonomics, using LVT, will ensure no icome tax, sales tax, tax on interest or inheritence tax. Tax is only on commonly created waelth and extract of commonn resouces and use of common resouces.

You are highly confused. That is sad.

----------


## Roy L

> Hang on a moment. If we are talking about land being special because it has a fixed physical supply (as opposed to economic supply)


Its economic supply is fixed.  That's what "fixed supply" means.  "Physical supply" is meaningless.



> then everything else in fixed physical supply is subject to the same arguments.


Prediction: you will now essay yet another fallacious, absurd, and dishonest spew of stupid garbage.



> Like the rare elements in a cell phone. Cell phone users are holding them hostage and denying their use to anyone else.


Garbage.  They paid the producers of those products *for producing* them.  They are therefore holding nothing hostage, because if not for the customers who pay for the cell phones, those rare elements would still be sitting in the ground.  You are spewing stupid, absurd, fallacious, and dishonest garbage, and you know it.



> Or shall we go simpler with Copper. The LVT arguments get pretty quickly to the idea that we should be paying rent to the 'community' for all the copper one is using.


Nope.  You're just lying again.  With LVT, permanently reducing land value by extracting a depletable resource like copper triggers a once-and-for-all "severance" tax (similar to an oil royalty); but as the copper one is using is not a natural resource, there is never any additional tax owing.



> This is all beside the point that if you forced someone to pay vast sums of money for land, they will just abandon the land and move elsewhere.


But that is not LVT.  You are ignoring -- actually, you are dishonestly denying -- the fact that LVT is a* voluntary* payment of market value.  It is the exact same amount that the most appropriate prospective user would be WILLING TO PAY the landowner for use of the land.  Only the destination of the payment is different.



> The only thing LVT does is punish resource utilisation.


No, that's just another flat-out lie from you.  LVT merely redirects the payment for using the resource away from the parasitic private owner who did not create its value to the government and community that did.



> This will inevitably lead to a bubble economy that is without industries that use resources heavily.


Flat false.  LVT does not alter the cost of using resources.  It just changes who gets paid for them.  The result is a balanced, prosperous economy where resources are utilized efficiently.  Like:



> See Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.


??  ROTFL!!!  You are really calling Singapore, HK and Taiwan "bubble economies wthout industries that use resources heavily"???

FYI, they are economies that DON'T HAVE much in the way of resources, but are nevertheless free and prosperous, and virtually models of good government compared to bastions of landowner privilege like Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc.



> Alternatively people will simply game the system.


They can't.  Land can't move, and it can't hide.



> Wither they will sell land back and forth for $1 and game the value


Won't work.  The assessments would all be public, and based on computer models using actual market transaction data.  Anyone could check them, so any such anomaly would stick out like a sore thumb.  Non-arm's length private sales would be ignored by the valuation program, or corrected using an open auction process.



> or they will game exemptions and put a flor of apartments at the base or above every business so that the land gains residence exemption.


Nope.  Wrong _again_.  The exemption is for actual use, not notional use (i.e., citizens who were not using their exemptions elsewhere would actually have to be living there), and is by value, not area.  



> The losers are anything creating real wealth, like mines or heavy industry.


Nope.  Wrong _AGAIN_.  LVT doesn't change the amount producers have to pay for resources, it just changes who gets the money.  So the real wealth creators would be relieved of the burden of paying for government twice in order to support an idle, privileged, parasitic landowning class.



> They will pack up and leave.


Nope.  LVT is known to be a magnet for both immigration and investment.  That's why it transformed Meiji Japan from a stagnant, feudal backwater to a global economic, industrial and military power in a single generation.

I have to hand it to you for consistency: everything you say is the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You forgot to explain how a tax on land value could or would decrease supply, as you define it.
> 
> *Until you do so, you are talking nonsense*.


Steven rarely writes anything but.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Because it's been the most prosperous.  The advances that it enabled also allowed advances in killing.


Interesting video of Fred Harrison. Capitalism in its current form is a killing machine.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Because the privilege of exclusive use of an area of land is necessary to our way of life.  To do away with private tenure of land would be to do away with fixed improvements.  Obviously, that's not beneficial to society.  The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.


That is a very valid angle to tax land by its a land. There are others. 
One is:
*Reclaiming commonly created wealth to pay for common services.* 

Very sensible.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Bull$#@!.  It can and is, and that's easily proved. 
> 
> If a Perfectly Benevolent Landlord bought land for the sole purpose of allowing the poor to use his superior land at the lowest possible costs to themselves, and without any profits (or losses) to the landlord himself - just a pure break even - the MINIMUM COST that the landlord would need to *pass along*, or *SHIFT proportionately*, would be that cost levied by the land value tax itself.


But that's just a bull$#@! example.  In reality, owners of land charge tenants for using land.  If the owners are taxed, they aren't able to charge tenants *more* because of the tax.  That's the point.




> The second proof - the falsification of that bunk claim that land rents cannot be passed along or shifted to tenants:  It is possible for a landlord to make all LVT payments *without any other source of income besides rents from his tenants*.   How is that possible without the land rents being shifted to those tenants -- given that the tenants are the ONLY ONES producing anything in that particular scenario, and the only ones paying out any money at all?  Is the landlord "paying" that, or is he just acting as a go-between as he takes from the tenants and gives it over to the $#@!ing state!


Sigh.  The whole point is that he isn't able to charge them more.  He bears the burden of the tax because his tenants' money goes to the state, rather than his pockets.  Duh.




> Not so slippery fast.  We were talking about supply. You know, the actual economic definition of supply, which makes it *a price-dependent variable*, even with land. The entire amount of land in existence is not "the supply". They are not the same thing, remember?


So what?  No matter how you define supply, it's inarguably limited by the amount that actually exists.  Duh again.




> In the market/economic sense of supply, "_come into existence_" means "a given quantity is made available by a given seller at a given price over a given period of time".  That is based on FIVE specific variables (ability to sell, willingness to sell -- a given quantity, at a given price, over a given period of time).  That applies to anything (including land).


That's not actually the economic definition of supply, but an idiosyncratic definition you made up.  But it makes no difference, because the supply of land is strictly limited by the amount of land in existence.




> You're off on a wild tangent now.  I say "supply increases", and you say, "No sir! Not forever it doesn't! Not infinitely! Not more than the universe makes available!"


No, you didn't say "supply increases."  You said:

"The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof."

and

"Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon."

Sorry your words were so stupid.  But that's your problem; lying about what you said makes it no better.




> Let me clear this up so that you can untangle your brain and actually digest it.  
> 
> If an LVT of $ONE ZILLLION-GAZILLLION was levied (Land Rents times infinity), the "supply" of land, given that NOBODY could afford to pay the land rents, would be *100%*.  Supply can go to 100% in theory, but never beyond that.  And remember (VERY IMPORTANT, NEVER FORGET) that *supply is a function of price*, as well as quantity and time.  Nearly ALL supply (of anything) theoretically approaches 100% _of whatever is humanly available_ as the price approaches 100% _of whatever is humanly possible_.  So why feign poop-stupid and pretend that claims of infinite supply are being made?


What the hell is that even supposed to mean?  The supply of land "goes" to 100%?  What?  What's that even supposed to *mean*?




> Now you're being plain obtuse.  This is a catastrophic failure _on your part_. I can get 1,000 citations to support that claim -- right from LVT proponents who make that very claim as a reason in favor of the tax!  Here's just one from a single lazy Google search that you could have performed yourself (if you were interested in knowing anything about LVT, that is): 
> 
> 
> 
> See that, Matt? LVT "_...promotes vertical, rather than horizontal, development..._"  A claim made countless times by LVT proponents.


It promotes efficient land use; in the urban context, that's generally more vertical than we now see.  But that's in an urban context.




> You really are that daft, aren't you? They were not mutually exclusive propositions. In fact, many of the same speculators who would be selling land would be the same ones condensing their holdings so that they can build vertically.  Was that really that hard for you to grasp?  Did you really, honestly see that as an either/or proposition?


It pretty much is.  If, as you claim, the LVT would increase "supply" of land, does it not stand to reason that people would be *less* inclined to build vertically?




> I guess you can't get anything right with LVT, Matt. That's the trouble with being a blind-faith supporter of something you obviously don't fully understand.


Hahaha.  Man are you ridiculous.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> If the owners are taxed, they aren't able to charge tenants *more* because of the tax.  That's the point.


Yes, they are. All of them are, in the aggregate. They just aren't able (in theory) to gain a competitive advantage that allows them to charge more rent _than the other landowners_, assuming the tax is proportionately levied on everyone.  Assuming a perfectly competitive market, if the tax increases, all rents charged by landlords will increase in the aggregate. 




> The whole point is that he isn't able to charge them more.  He bears the burden of the tax because his tenants' money goes to the state, rather than his pockets.


That's the whole point.  The effect of the poor paying rents to landlords doesn't go away at all (it actually increases, as shown below). A portion of it only shifts from the property rents landlord to the ground rents landlord, the state. 




> No matter how you define supply, it's inarguably limited by the amount that actually exists.


Yes, both unarguably and irrelevantly. So what? The fact remains that supply is a dynamic variable - not fixed or inelastic - within its physical, theoretical limits. 




> In the market/economic sense of supply, "come into existence" means "a given quantity is made available by a given seller at a given price over a given period of time". That is based on FIVE specific variables (ability to sell, willingness to sell -- a given quantity, at a given price, over a given period of time). That applies to anything (including land).
> 			
> 		
> 
> That's not actually the economic definition of supply, but an idiosyncratic definition you made up.


Oh, really?  So you've never studied basic economics or microeconomics, I take it. 

Here's an excerpt from an online tutorial (with the five variable criteria I mentioned bolded in red):  




> Microeconomics - Theory of Supply
> Supply is defined as the *quantity* of a product that a producer is *willing* and *able* to supply onto the market at a given *price* in a given *time* period.


The seller in that case is referred to as a "producer" (a subset of sellers/suppliers), just as the "thing" being supplied is referred to as "product" (a subset of any thing being supplied). Supply is not constrained to producers and products, but the required elements are all there, regardless how the sentence is constructed. 

The following example states the same exact thing in a different way, with all five criteria spelled out (once again, emphasis mine):




> LAW OF SUPPLY:
> The direct relationship between supply price and the quantity supplied, assuming ceteris paribus factors are held constant. This economic principle indicates that an increase in the *price* of a commodity results in an increase in the *quantity* of the commodity that sellers are *willing* and *able* to sell in a given period of *time*, if other factors are held constant. The law of supply is an important principle in the study of economics.


See that, Matt?  For anything to be counted as "supply", there must be:

1) ability to sell
2) willingness to sell
3) a given quantity, at 
4) a given price, in
5) a given period of time

All of those elements are required for any thing to be counted as supply.  That is not my idiosyncrasy at work. That is truly basic economics.  Inability to sell - NOT SUPPLY.  Unwillingness to sell - NOT SUPPLY.  No specified quantity - NOT SUPPLY.  No given price - NOT SUPPLY.  Outside a given period of time (e.g., won't sell until five years from now) - NOT SUPPLY. 




> No, you didn't say "supply increases."  You said:
> 
> "The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof."
> 
> and
> 
> "Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon."
> 
> Sorry your words were so stupid.  But that's your problem; lying about what you said makes it no better.


Both of my quotes stand as the truth as it relates to land and LVT.  The greater the increase on the tax levied on the basis of landownership, the more land is sold (supplied) to avoid the tax, given that the cost of ownership (to the state) becomes artificially prohibitive. That's not controversial, that's a geoist plank! 




> What the hell is that even supposed to mean?  The supply of land "goes" to 100%?  What?  What's that even supposed to *mean*?


You're only confused because you don't know any basic economics.  See "supply" above.  It's not a complicated concept, Matt.  If every landowner was levied at a rate that was impossible for anyone to pay, everyone would be forced to sell (100% supplied to the market) to avoid the tax.  Those who could not sell would still not be able to pay and would lose title anyway, which means that no matter what, 100% of the land would be "supplied" (even if by the repossessing state alone) to the market.  




> It promotes efficient land use...


AKA "keeps the human parasites more confined, not as Naturally At Liberty to spread out" 

Thanks for your meddling concern. We'll see below how that model for promoting "efficient land use" works out, and who stands to benefit most from that "efficiency". 




> If, as you claim, the LVT would increase "supply" of land, does it not stand to reason that people would be *less* inclined to build vertically?


You are forgetting that the "supply" of land increased only because the perpetual cost of ownership (to the state) increased.  Land that is "cheap to buy" is not necessarily "cheap to own".  

With LVT, the state is saying, in effect, "Landowners and land developers, you can profit from rents on any 'artificial land' you build above ground. The state profits from the ground itself, and everything below and found therein."  That is the fundamental division - the partnership between landowners/developers and the state. It is also why developers and speculators would be *more* inclined to own just enough of the best lands (lakeside, bay view, downtown commercial, etc.,) on which to build a vertical profit tower.  All the rent-seeking behavior is still there, as before.  The incentive is now in place to make sure that all resources that are taken out of the earth are simply lifted above the earth (where taxes are supposedly nonexistent) on as small a land footprint as possible.  THAT is how "new land" comes into existence under LVT.  

LVT is a mechanism for artificially concentrating urban populations (read=the majority of the world population), which are herded vertically and condensed into less horizontal space. The "community activity" that actually provides the income for landowners to pay land rents is the very basis for the Land Value Tax in the first place. 

Now for the Neat Trick - the insidious consequence and side effect, regardless of anyone's intent:  

Since a downtown skyscraper (or casino in the desert) with lots of "community activity" *automatically raises the land rents/LVT on all empty adjacent parcels in its vicinity*, all a developer needs to do in order to _price the majority of the population completely out of neighboring land market_ (in terms of LVT cost of ownership ONLY) is concentrate on developing his own small parcel of land! That automatically makes all the remaining parcels in the vicinity -- including empty lots -- cost prohibitive to all but the most well-healed developers. 

Vertical profit towers with "captive concentrated communities" eventually become profitable to the point where Land Value Tax is not a concern at all.  This in turn concentrates the power of landownership, with long-term speculation on smaller spaces in the very best areas. The nearby outlying parcels are always shielded from  ownership by any average person due to the increased LVT on adjacent parcels - all based on proximity alone.  The landowner can just take the rents from the population that is now herded and confined to vertical profit towers, and give the state its proportionate due -- just like Hong Kong. Only in the case of LVT, there are no leasehold titles; just conditional ownership titles, held in perpetuity by anyone who is willing to continue paying the taxes. Which are no longer a problem, since all the livable/usable "artificial land" is now floating safely above ground, out of the reach of taxes, with all the "productive community members" paying rents mostly on capital improvements.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Yes, they are. All of them are, in the aggregate. They just aren't able (in theory) to gain a competitive advantage that allows them to charge more rent _than the other landowners_, assuming the tax is proportionately levied on everyone.  Assuming a perfectly competitive market, if the tax increases, all rents charged by landlords will increase in the aggregate.


No, they will not.




> That's the whole point.  The effect of the poor paying rents to landlords doesn't go away at all. A portion of it only shifts from the property rents landlord to the ground rents landlord, the state.


??  That's the entire point of the tax.  It's the point you've been fruitlessly disputing.




> Yes, both unarguably and irrelevantly. So what? It's still a variable.


So land supply is limited by the amount that exists.




> Oh, really?  So you've never studied basic economics or microeconomics, I take it.


We're not talking about microeconomics.




> Here's an excerpt from an online tutorial (with the five variable criteria I mentioned bolded in red):  
> 
> 
> 
> The seller in that case is referred to as a "producer" (a subset of sellers/suppliers), just as the "thing" being supplied is referred to as "product" (a subset of any thing being supplied). Supply is not constrained to producers and products, but the elements are all there.


Except, of course, no one produces land or supplies it in any meaningful way.  It's just there, and the seller takes what the market offers or not.




> The following example states it in different terms, with all five criteria spelled out (once again, emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> See that, Matt?  For anything to be counted as "supply", there must be:
> 
> 1) ability to sell
> 2) willingness to sell
> 3) a given quantity, at 
> 4) a given price, in
> 5) a given period of time


Nope.  That's not even what the portion you've quoted says.




> All of those elements are required for any thing to be counted as supply.  That is not my idiosyncrasy at work. That is truly basic economics.  Inability to sell - NOT SUPPLY.  Unwillingness to sell - NOT SUPPLY.  No specified quantity - NOT SUPPLY.  No given price - NOT SUPPLY.  Outside a given period of time (e.g., won't sell until five years from now) - NOT SUPPLY.


You're confusing supply with quantity supplied.

You'll note, also, that land is a special case, as it's supply does not respond to price.  Because the supply is fixed.  Duh.




> Both of my quotes stand as the truth as it relates to land and LVT.  The greater the increase on the tax levied on the basis of landownership, the more land is sold (supplied) to avoid the tax, given that the cost of ownership (to the state) becomes artificially prohibitive. That's not controversial, that's a geoist plank!


Not only is that not a geoist plank, it doesn't even make any sense.  A sale requires both a seller and a buyer; if everyone wanted to be rid of land, there'd be no buyers.  Duh.




> You're only confused because you don't know any basic economics.  See "supply" above.


Haha!  By your understanding of supply, we can increase the supply of cars by selling each other a single car over and over.  "We've sold 100 cars between us!  Supply is way up!"




> It's not a complicated concept, Matt.  If every landowner was levied at a rate that was impossible for anyone to pay, everyone would be forced to sell (100% supplied to the market) to avoid the tax.  Those who could not sell would still not be able to pay and would lose title anyway, which means that no matter what, 100% of the land would be "supplied" (even if by the repossessing state alone) to the market.


But if no land can be used, in what sense is it supplied?  Man, you really are off in the woods.  You have not clue 1 what you're talking about.  Taxed things get supplied less, not more, by the way.  Land, being fixed in supply, is an exception to that rule, which is one of the good reasons to tax it.




> AKA "keeps the human parasites more confined, not as naturally able to spread out"


Not at all.  It simply means that humans need not spread out more than they need or want to.  They don't have to build at the edge of town because some speculator in a prime lot is holding out for a bubble market.




> If, as you claim, the LVT would increase "supply" of land, does it not stand to reason that people would be less inclined to build vertically?


Except developers have to pay for land now.  And not only that, they have to pay up-front.




> LVT is a mechanism for artificially concentrating urban populations (read=the majority of the world population), which are herded vertically and condensed into less horizontal space. The "community activity" that actually provides the income for landowners to pay land rents is the very basis for the Land Value Tax in the first place.


Actually, it simply reduces the artificial sprawl that we suffer from now.  I understand that you dislike being around people (which I suspect is mutual), but actually, many people would love to live in urban centers.  Many would live in Manhattan if they could, for example; they can't because the supply of dwellings is artificially limited due to the incentive to hold land for speculative gains.  Result?  Sprawl.  Those people have to live in Jersey and commute back and forth each day, wasting their time and society's resources.  Society as a whole is much poorer due to this inefficiency.




> Now for the Neat Trick - the insidious consequence and side effect, regardless of anyone's intent:  
> 
> Since a downtown skyscraper (or casino in the desert) with lots of "community activity" *automatically raises the land rents/LVT on all empty adjacent parcels in its vicinity*, all a developer needs to do in order to _price the majority of the population completely out of neighboring land market_ (in terms of LVT cost of ownership ONLY) is concentrate on developing his own small parcel of land! That automatically makes all the remaining parcels in the vicinity -- including empty lots -- cost prohibitive to all but the most well-healed developers.


Uh, no.  It makes no sense to build a skyscraper unless there is a demand for a skyscraper.  This is not Field of Dreams: just because you build it, doesn't mean people will fill it up.  Also, skyscrapers don't magically make land in their vicinity more valuable.  You have it backwards: land doesn't become more valuable because skyscrapers are built; skyscrapers are built because the land is valuable enough to justify a massive investment in improvements.  Lots near skyscrapers are cost prohibitive to all but the most well-healed developers in any case.  Duh.  That's why skyscrapers were built there.




> Vertical profit towers with "captive concentrated communities" eventually become profitable to the point where Land Value Tax is not a concern at all.  This in turn concentrates the power of landownership, with long-term speculation on smaller spaces in the very best areas. The nearby outlying parcels are always shielded from  ownership by any average person due to the increased LVT on adjacent parcels - all based on proximity alone.  The landowner can just take the rents from the population that is now herded and confined to vertical profit towers, and give the state its proportionate due -- just like Hong Kong. Only in the case of LVT, there are no leasehold titles; just conditional ownership titles, held in perpetuity by anyone who is willing to continue paying the taxes. Which are no longer a problem, since all the livable/usable "artificial land" is now floating safely above ground, out of the reach of taxes, with all the "productive community members" paying rents mostly on capital improvements.


And why would people suddenly prefer living there?  Like many before you, you seem to think that the desire to avoid paying taxes somehow trumps all -even total cost of living.  That, of course, is just stupid.

----------


## pochy1776

> Yes, actually, it is.  It is needed to make sure people profit from their innovations, which you said they should.  Most innovators and patent holders don't make any money under the current system.  Under my tax proposal, they would.  So the tax is needed to make sure innovators profit from their innovations.
> 
> Garbage.  Dividends are paid to shareholders, not innovators.  Try again.


The shareholders are those who fund the innovator.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> No, they will not.


That's not an argument or a refutation, Matt. Mine is still standing. 




> So land supply is limited by the amount that exists.


Yes. The physically supply of virtually everything has physical limits - as does demand.  I am not an economist who believes that exponential growth is even possible, let alone sustainable. However, the physical limits of supply and demand does nothing to help the specious, bull$#@! pseudo-economics claim by geolibs that the supply of land is fixed or inelastic, or that the supply curve is somehow perfectly vertical. 




> We're not talking about microeconomics.


The hell we're not, and once again, that is proof positive that you don't know anything about economics, let alone geonomics.  What do you think microeconomics is, anyway? Don't make a fool out of yourself, Matt, GOOGLE IT!




> Microeconomics (from Greek prefix micro- "μικρό" meaning "small" + "economics"- "οικονομια") is a branch of economics that studies the behavior of individual households and firms in making decisions on the allocation of limited resources. Typically, it applies to markets where goods or services are bought and sold. 
> 
> *Microeconomics examines how decisions and behaviors affect the supply and demand for goods and services, which determines prices, and how prices, in turn, determine the quantity supplied and quantity demanded of goods and services.*





> You're confusing supply with quantity supplied.


You have ZERO CLUE what you are talking about, Matt, but I'll help you with your ignorance and confusion.  

Supply is the total quantity of a good or service that is available for purchase (seller both willing and able) at a given price, within a given time.  The TOTAL SUPPLY represents all possible relationships between the quantity available for sale at *all possible prices that could be charged for that good*, as represented by supply schedules and/or curves.  The "*quantity supplied*" is the _specific_ quantity that a _specific_ seller desires to sell at a _specific_ price in an _actual_ given time period.  




> You'll note, also, that land is a special case, as it's supply does not respond to price.  Because the supply is fixed.  Duh.


No, that's where your obtuse clinging to a pseudo-economic false definition of supply kicks in, and sends your brain looping around in circles. You can't get it out of your head that SUPPLY IS NOT THE TOTAL QUANTITY IN EXISTENCE. 

The _price elasticity of supply_ represents how sensitive the quantity supplied is to changes in price, NOT the other way around. Price elasticity is not how sensitive price is to quantity, but rather how sensitive quantity is to price.  In the real world, if the general market price of a good rises (assuming no hyperinflation or other economic distortions), MORE SELLERS will be willing to sell more of those goods at that higher price.  That is absolutely true of the land and real estate markets, which are no exception to that rule.  Everybody wants to buy low and sell high. 




> A sale requires both a seller and a buyer; if everyone wanted to be rid of land, there'd be no buyers.  Duh.


A "SALE" requires both a seller and buyer. A SUPPLY requires a SELLER. Period. Duh. 




> Haha!  By your understanding of supply, we can increase the supply of cars by selling each other a single car over and over.  "We've sold 100 cars between us!  Supply is way up!"


You really don't understand anything about economics, Matt.  You're back to confusing "supply" with "sale" - and your confusion about "quantity supplied".  Look at the original definition of supply, and you will see that it does not depend on an actual sale.  




> But if no land can be used, in what sense is it supplied?


That's your lay-reasoning at work. You obviously think that "supplied" means that someone has received a good ("was supplied"), and that a transaction has taken place. 

I take out a 1,000 separate ebay listings for 1,000 individual coins at an asking price of $10 per coin. IF NOT ONE COIN SELLS my "quantity supplied" is still 1,000 coins at a price of $10 per coin.  

Likewise with land.  If I offer ten thousand acres at a bazillion dollars per acre, that is the quantity supplied - which has NOTHING to do with how it related to DEMAND, or whether anything was actually transacted.  




> Taxed things get supplied less, not more, by the way.


WRONG. *Taxed things simply get distorted*.  If the tax is on the basis of ownership, those things that serve as the basis for that tax get supplied more (dumped on the market to avoid the tax).  They get SUPPLIED MORE, but they are DEMANDED LESS based on that same market distortion, because the artificial increase in the cost of ownership applies equally to buyers and sellers, and thus encourages selling while simultaneously discouraging buying. 

Again, LVT makes land cheap to buy, NOT CHEAP TO OWN. 




> Land, being fixed in supply, is an exception to that rule, which is one of the good reasons to tax it.


Again, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, as you are right back to clinging to the false notion that land is "fixed in supply".  




> It simply means that humans need not spread out more than they need or want to.


You have need and want all $#@!ed up.  YOU may personally think that humans "need" not spread out more than YOU THINK THEY NEED TO, but the truth is that the humans that WANT to spread out are ECONOMICALLY, ARTIFICIALLY DISCOURAGED from doing so.  That's because developers can artificially affect an increase the COST OF OWNERSHIP of neighboring lands, by simply developing, and attracting more economic activity to their developed parcel. 




> Except developers have to pay for land now.  And not only that, they have to pay up-front.


Yeah. A small amount of land, at a small price initially, which starts out theoretically as low LVT.  As they improve their land, they enjoy the rents on their improvements, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY driving up land rents on their competing neighbors' lands.  




> Actually, it simply reduces the artificial sprawl that we suffer from now.


The artificial sprawl we suffer from now is a direct result of unsound currency and corrupt, centralized monetary policy.  The answer to addiction to uppers is not a counter-addiction by the state to LVT downers.  




> Also, skyscrapers don't magically make land in their vicinity more valuable.  You have it backwards: land doesn't become more valuable because skyscrapers are built; skyscrapers are built because the land is valuable enough to justify a massive investment in improvements.


Bull$#@!.  Skyscrapers, otherwise known as Casinos in the desert, prove that to be complete and utter bull$#@!.  First they are built, however small, but larger and more expensive than surrounding improvements. By developers. Entrepreneurs.  It is not until the people come that the land value increases.  You don't even have a grasp of geonomics, let alone basic economics, as that is a geoist plank. The only difference is that the geolibs want the cause of land values attributed solely to buyers (economic "community" activity) and public infrastructure - not landowner developments, which are the primary reason everyone came to buy in the first place.




> Lots near skyscrapers are cost prohibitive to all but the most well-healed developers in any case.  Duh.  That's why skyscrapers were built there.


Stay focused, Matt. You're mentally shifting like the sands.  The focus was not on the cost of the skyscrapers, but rather on the effects that skyscrapers have (based on the "economic activity" therein) on making NEIGHBORING LANDS COST PROHIBITIVE, based on increasing LVT under an LVT regime. And that is primarily because geolibs fail to acknowledge "developments" as a primary contributing factor for increased "economic activity", and therefore land values.  




> And why would people suddenly prefer living there?


*They wouldn't.*  On the whole, all things being equal, and cost being no consideration, MOST PEOPLE would _prefer_ to live in houses, not $#@!ing apartments. LVT sets in motion a dynamic that makes the cost of landownership, and therefore homeownership and cost of living in a home, DELIBERATELY AND ARTIFICIALLY COST PROHIBITIVE.

----------


## Roy L

> *WARNING - SLIPPERY DISHONEST SEMANTICS ALERT*


Oooh, yeah.



> Roy employs an extremely (but conveniently) distorted, intellectually dishonest view of both supply and demand where land is concerned, but especially supply.


No.  I use the standard economic concepts.  Steven is lying, as usual.



> When referring to land, Roy doesn't use the economic definition of supply.


Lie.



> The actual economic definition of supply is *the quantity (area/parcel/etc.,) that sellers are able and willing to sell, at a given price (over a given period of time)*.  All those variables are required to determine "supply".


As price only occurs in a transaction, willingness and ability to sell are givens.



> When Roy refers to supply, he means _the total land area in existence_, all of which is presumed to be "on the market", with all owners presumed to be sellers, all of which are both able _and willing_ to sell.


Right.  Because if there is a price, it has been sold.



> Roy uses this twisted, non-economic semantic shell game reasoning to argue for inelasticity and absolute fixity of land supply,


I.e., I identify the relevant facts of economics.



> and this is why, he argues, that owners/sellers "can't affect supply" -- even though the actual *economic supply* of land is anything but inelastic,


Lie.



> and sellers can and do affect supply, and ultimately market price, individually and in the aggregate, every day in the real estate market.


No, they do not.



> Roy's "inelastic supply" reasoning _could be_ said to be logically consistent, or have some bearing on reality, IF you begin from his presumption of the state as the lone "seller" (of LVT rental contracts). Then you are referring only to the "RENTAL" supply, with the state having arrogated all land/land rents as common property under a geoist regime.


The supply of land is fixed under any regime.



> Under that paradigm, and assuming no minimum floor price is in effect, and assuming literally ALL land was indeed available to the market, land 'rental' supply could (in theory) be considered truly inelastic, with a supply curve that is perfectly vertical, as that is a case where the "seller" (the state) is willing to rent/sell/make all land available (for rent) to the market -- at any (LVT) price over any period of time.


All land is available at any price because the existence of its price MEANS the land changed hands.

----------


## Roy L

> The shareholders are those who fund the innovator.


No, they aren't.  They fund the lawyers who make sure the innovator gets nothing.

----------


## Roy L

> Your system is bunk.


LOL!  Let's see now, whose economic judgment to trust: yours, or Nobel laureates' in economics... 



> Certain "unjust land owners" can and would become all landowners in your little tax package- politicians can not help themselves to such a low hanging fruit.


What does that even mean?  You claim *I* don't express myself clearly?



> And don't give me the government would never do that line...its a load of manure.


It's up to the people to hold government accountable no matter what policy is proposed.  Claiming government would enact a different policy is not an argument against a proposed policy.  It's just you chanting "meeza hatesa gubmint" like a mantra.

----------


## Roy L

> Here we go. ....politicians *are* the direct beneficiary of tax dollars along with the armies of departments and paid off cronies.


Garbage.  The amount politicians get out of public revenue is a microscopic fraction of what landowners get.



> The privilages are due to government guns and threats.


But who is rich, the big landowners or the police officers who serve them?  Hello?



> Where do they grow you guys...Your negative reps precede you.


"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom  go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -- Samuel Adams

----------


## Roy L

> Thanks for your antiquated propaganda citations from Henry George (no authority here), rather than argue anything directly yourself.


The passage from George proved you wrong very clearly, simply and eloquently.



> You are certainly right that it is not rocket science. It is basic economics, which you also fail to understand, as you make the same fatal mistakes as Roy relating to supply and demand, even quoting Henry George in a way that suggests he made the same _truly basic mistakes_ as both of you.


You are the one making the basic mistake.  Do you really think you understand economics better than Nobel laureates in economics?



> If LVT removes incentive from land speculators to hold onto lands, that tax most certainly gives landowners an incentive to SELL (make more land available to the market),


No, it's already available to the market, and will ALL sell at its price no matter how much that price is.



> thus affecting an INCREASE in supply (as a market correction), which in turn affects market price, with a consequent downward pressure on land values on the whole.


And no change in supply.



> Thus, taxing land *affects* both supply and demand (but only if you're honest enough to use the actual economic definitions for each), and can indeed be passed onto others, like any other cost.


By the actual economic definition, it affects demand but not supply.



> Henry George wrote that LVT *"...in no way diminishes the amount of land there is to use..."* What does that mean, exactly? The "_amount of land there is to use_" is NOT the *economic supply*.


Yes, it is.



> So much for your appeals to Henry George.


So much for your anti-economic nonsense.

----------


## Roy L

> You are completely disconnected from reality. Taxes are used to sell the next tax.


No, that's just absolute garbage.  Taxes are given to the rich and privileged, who then support the politicians that gave them the tax money, through donations.



> The more taxes politicians have the more they can buy off the people to go along with the next tax increase.


Except that's not what happens.



> Politicians or "elected officials" are simply sales men for government. The more money of ours they have the more buying off they can do.


Your claims are false and absurd.  As a general rule, the countries that devote the most of their GDP to government are the least corrupt, and vice versa.



> So the absurd levels of taxation that exist today is because the people wanted it through their elected officials? Not because the elected officials simply use their office to loot the public?


The levels are clearly not absurd, as they are below historical norms.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> That's not an argument or a refutation, Matt. Mine is still standing.


You didn't make an argument.  You simply asserted that prices would increase in aggregate, without explanation.




> Yes. The physically supply of virtually everything has physical limits - as does demand.  I am not an economist who believes that exponential growth is even possible, let alone sustainable. However, the physical limits of supply and demand does nothing to help the specious, bull$#@! pseudo-economics claim by geolibs that the supply of land is fixed or inelastic, or that the supply curve is somehow perfectly vertical.


What does the supply curve look like then?




> The hell we're not, and once again, that is proof positive that you don't know anything about economics, let alone geonomics.  What do you think microeconomics is, anyway? Don't make a fool out of yourself, Matt, GOOGLE IT!


Unlike you, I already knew what microeconomics meant.  Here's a clue: this debate centers around a macroeconomic issue.




> You have ZERO CLUE what you are talking about, Matt, but I'll help you with your ignorance and confusion.  
> 
> Supply is the total quantity of a good or service that is available for purchase (seller both willing and able) at a given price, within a given time.  The TOTAL SUPPLY represents all possible relationships between the quantity available for sale at *all possible prices that could be charged for that good*, as represented by supply schedules and/or curves.  The "*quantity supplied*" is the _specific_ quantity that a _specific_ seller desires to sell at a _specific_ price in an _actual_ given time period.


Right.  And the total supply of land is what is in existence.




> No, that's where your obtuse clinging to a pseudo-economic false definition of supply kicks in, and sends your brain looping around in circles. You can't get it out of your head that SUPPLY IS NOT THE TOTAL QUANTITY IN EXISTENCE. 
> 
> The _price elasticity of supply_ represents how sensitive the quantity supplied is to changes in price, NOT the other way around. Price elasticity is not how sensitive price is to quantity, but rather how sensitive quantity is to price.  In the real world, if the general market price of a good rises (assuming no hyperinflation or other economic distortions), MORE SELLERS will be willing to sell more of those goods at that higher price.  That is absolutely true of the land and real estate markets, which are no exception to that rule.  Everybody wants to buy low and sell high.


It is not true of the land market, because land is not produced.  As you say, everyone wants to buy low and sell high: whether land prices are generally low or generally high, either the buyer or seller isn't getting his way (during the bubble, sellers were happy, but buyers had to assume loads of debt, whereas now, sellers are all "woe is me" whereas buyers feel they're getting a great deal).  Because of this, the sale of land is not affected by price.  In fact, price is affected exclusively by demand.




> A "SALE" requires both a seller and buyer. A SUPPLY requires a SELLER. Period. Duh.


Every owner is a potential seller.  At all times.




> You really don't understand anything about economics, Matt.  You're back to confusing "supply" with "sale" - and your confusion about "quantity supplied".  Look at the original definition of supply, and you will see that it does not depend on an actual sale.


I'm aware of that, and aware that it is in fact you who knows nothing of economics.  




> That's your lay-reasoning at work. You obviously think that "supplied" means that someone has received a good ("was supplied"), and that a transaction has taken place.


No, it's what you think.  Land changing hands does not affect the supply of land.  There is what there is, and that's that.  Whether people are actively selling it is irrelevant.  




> WRONG. *Taxed things simply get distorted*.  If the tax is on the basis of ownership, those things that serve as the basis for that tax get supplied more (dumped on the market to avoid the tax).


Nope.  The Egyptian Mohammed Ali taxed the ownership of date trees.  Result?  The trees were cut down to avoid the tax.  Supply was reduced.  You stupidly think that the date trees only constituted supply if the owners of them were actively trying to sell them, but in reality, the supply of date trees was what was in existence, because others could possibly buy them from their owners.  But once they were cut down, the supply was reduced.  And that's what happens when you tax things that are not fixed in supply: the supply is reduced.




> Again, LVT makes land cheap to buy, NOT CHEAP TO OWN.


Finally, you've said something that isn't wrong.




> Again, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, as you are right back to clinging to the false notion that land is "fixed in supply".


It is fixed in supply.




> You have need and want all $#@!ed up.  YOU may personally think that humans "need" not spread out more than YOU THINK THEY NEED TO, but the truth is that the humans that WANT to spread out are ECONOMICALLY, ARTIFICIALLY DISCOURAGED from doing so.  That's because developers can artificially affect an increase the COST OF OWNERSHIP of neighboring lands, by simply developing, and attracting more economic activity to their developed parcel.


No, they actually can't.  You fail to understand that what you're describing is a positive externality; firms actually generally look to avoid this, because it is a benefit they pay for, but do not profit by.




> Yeah. A small amount of land, at a small price initially, which starts out theoretically as low LVT.  As they improve their land, they enjoy the rents on their improvements, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY driving up land rents on their competing neighbors' lands.


They only drive up the rents to neighbors' land *to the extent that their neighbors' land is more economically beneficial to own*.  That's a good thing, Steven.  Like if you own a bar, and a football stadium is built nearby; sure, the football stadium might well drive up the value of your land: *but it does so because there are vastly increased benefits for owning that land*.  Now, you have a steady stream of new patrons who are drawn to the area due to the stadium.  If there are no increased benefits to owning the land, the value does not go up, because the value is a reflection *of what people are willing to pay for use of the land*.

If you had even the slightest clue what you were talking about, you'd already understand this.




> The artificial sprawl we suffer from now is a direct result of unsound currency and corrupt, centralized monetary policy.


False.  It is guaranteed by our land tenure policy, and would exist regardless of monetary policy.  If there's an incentive to hold land out of use, or under-utilize land, the inescapable result is sprawl.  Our land tenure policy guarantees improvements will be under-provided.  Under-provision of improvements necessitates sprawl.  And sprawl is very costly: not only is it costly to individuals who must burn time and resources commuting, but also to government, who must provide more roads and public transit to enable people to commute.




> Bull$#@!.  Skyscrapers, otherwise known as Casinos in the desert, prove that to be complete and utter bull$#@!.  First they are built, however small, but larger and more expensive than surrounding improvements. By developers. Entrepreneurs.


How are entrepreneurs going to make money investing in improvements that are not in demand?




> It is not until the people come that the land value increases.  You don't even have a grasp of geonomics, let alone basic economics, as that is a geoist plank. The only difference is that the geolibs want the cause of land values attributed solely to buyers (economic "community" activity) and public infrastructure - not landowner developments, which are the primary reason everyone came to buy in the first place.


Well, you have it ass-backwards.  That's just a fact.  You don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building buildings in the hope that, someday, its cost will be justified.  Not if you want to remain in business.  High land values precede skyscrapers; they're what justifies such an intensive use of land.




> Stay focused, Matt. You're mentally shifting like the sands.  The focus was not on the cost of the skyscrapers, but rather on the effects that skyscrapers have (based on the "economic activity" therein) on making NEIGHBORING LANDS COST PROHIBITIVE, based on increasing LVT under an LVT regime. And that is primarily because geolibs fail to acknowledge "developments" as a primary contributing factor for increased "economic activity", and therefore land values.


That's because they're generally not.  And to the extent they do, they do so now.




> *They wouldn't.*  On the whole, all things being equal, and cost being no consideration, MOST PEOPLE would _prefer_ to live in houses, not $#@!ing apartments.


I don't know about that.  And there's also condominiums.  When George Jefferson made it, he moved to the East side, to a de-luxe apartment in the sky!

In point of fact, Midtown Manhattan is some of the most expensive land on earth, and that's so because so many people have such a strong desire to live there.  Manhattan's $#@!ing awesome.  While it's true that people who don't live there can enjoy the opportunities and amenities available in Manhattan, it's also true that it's very expensive and inconvenient to do so if you don't live near it.  That's why *the privilege* of living in Manhattan is so costly.  It's unfortunate that improvements are under-provided, because without that misallocation of resources, we'd all be much better off.




> LVT sets in motion a dynamic that makes the cost of landownership, and therefore homeownership and cost of living in a home, DELIBERATELY AND ARTIFICIALLY COST PROHIBITIVE.


Utterly false.  The LVT would make owning a home far, far less expensive than it currently is.  Not only would people not have to pay taxes in addition to paying for land, but they'd also avoid paying interest on the purchase-price of the land they use.  Fail.

----------


## Len Larson

> Not really.  A Senator has pretty much the same power whether taxes are high or low.


Go sell your brand of crazy on K street.
You really can't be this clueless, can you?

----------


## Roy L

> You are arguing cryptic ideas


So cryptic they were implemented successfully in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read...



> and carrying on antagonistic quasi debates with multiple members.


It's good that you recognize they deny, ignore, dismiss, insult, and fabricate, but aren't even attempting to debate.



> You have negative reputations


Proudly.



> You pretend you don't understand when some one clearly points out how ludicrous your positions are.


No, we show that we understand all too well.



> There is a term for this behavior...let me see, now what is it...hmm


"Perseverance"?

----------


## awake

> Garbage.  The amount politicians get out of public revenue is a microscopic fraction of what landowners get.
> 
> But who is rich, the big landowners or the police officers who serve them?  Hello?
> 
> "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom  go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -- Samuel Adams



I keep returning to the question: Why are you here? Milton Friedman must have a forum some where, and Ron Paul would not agree with anything you say.

----------


## Roy L

> The 20th century under democracy has been the bloodiest century in all mans history.


The advances that enabled so many more people to live came from democracies, but their blood was not shed by democracies.



> It allows any immoral criminal the ability to enter government and systematically covet and confiscate the property of all other people.


That's an absurd fabrication with no resemblance to reality.  What have you been doing, reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe's silly, fascist tripe?



> It is the current main driver of de-civilization through capital redistribution from producers (goods) to non producers (bads); destroying the former and fostering the latter.


No, privilege is.



> You imply that you fear communism, but democracy is a soft form of it


More absurdity.



> and will eventually bring about socialism if left to its design.


Hasn't happened yet.

----------


## Len Larson

> The Senators were merely instruments.  At the end of the day, we the people decided to go to Iraq.  The power to do so came from us.


Please cite the Declaration of War that we the people agreed to via our representatives.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Please cite the Declaration of War that we the people agreed to via our representatives.


Non-sequitur.

----------


## pochy1776

> No, they aren't.  They fund the lawyers who make sure the innovator gets nothing.


Proof? Not even tesla can attest to it.

----------


## Len Larson

> Non-sequitur.


Oh? What constitution do *your* Senators swear to uphold?

----------


## Roy L

> See? Roy is either a) off in pseudo-economics land, substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms,


No, that is where you are.



> or b) speaking only of the state as the seller (of land rent levies).  Either way, the economic supply in the current land market is anything but fixed.


That is false.  Land is a canonical example of a factor in fixed supply.



> Which is it? As it turns out, Roy is a) substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms.


No.  That is a fabrication on your part.



> See? A total abandonment/ignorance of the economics definition of supply.


Fabrication.  The definition I gave is the economic definition.



> Supply is NEITHER of Roy's FALSE CHOICES.


I didn't offer a choice.  I pointed out that your claimed supply was not supply.



> It is not "the total amount available to the market".


Yes, that is exactly what it is.



> That is simplistic, ill-defined, and flat out wrong,


It is correct.



> because he omits the REQUIRED variables of price and time.


No such variables are required.



> Neither is it Roy's other pseudo-economic false choice strawman: "...the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell."


That is the incorrect definition you are trying to put over.



> Supply is "the quantity (area in the case of land) a SELLER is *able and willing* to sell, at a given price, within a given period of time."


No, it is not.  It is the amount available to the market, as I said.



> Not all owners are sellers, because while they may be ABLE to sell, many are not WILLING to sell (at a given price, or within a given period of time),


The existence of price implies willingness to sell.  You just have to refuse to know that fact.



> ]which means NONE of that can be included in supply (at that price, within that given period of time).


What price?  Aye, there's the rub.

There is no price but the price something sells for.



> That's using the actual economics definition of supply, not Roy's conveniently simplistic pseudo-economics definition.


No, that is NOT using the actual economics definition of supply.



> Roy's talking nothing but obfuscating gibberish. Pseudo-economics.


As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

----------


## Len Larson

I guess we should at least be thankful that our current Land Value Troll can spell his name.

I must admit, I don't understand the fascination with the monarchy that is prevalent in the LVTrolls. 
We have RoyaL and Crowned Matt. What gives?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> I guess we should at least be thankful that our current Land Value Troll can spell his name.
> 
> I must admit, I don't understand the fascination with the monarchy that is prevalent in the LVTrolls. 
> We have RoyaL and Crowned Matt. What gives?


Irony, thy name is Len Larson.

----------


## Len Larson

My Hyperion (Rothbard) to your Satyr (George).

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Unlike you, I already knew what microeconomics meant.  Here's a clue: this debate centers around a macroeconomic issue.


Oh, you wish it was, and that's how you're desperately trying to frame it, as that would appeal to your collectivist sensibilities. That is also the only way you can insist on referring to land supply as fixed and perfectly inelastic - seeing everything only "economy-wide", in the collective -- with the more controversial _aggregate demand and aggregate supply_ (as if that meant anything at all, since virtually everything, productive and non-productive, used and non-used, can be counted as part of "the economy").  

Inelasticity of land supply for "the economy", in the aggregate, breaks down utterly and completely when you pull your head out the aggregate "economy-wide" ass void, and view land strictly from the level of the individual and/or competitive firm, and also examine supply in terms of "availability to use" (e.g., zoning laws on the public sector control side, or industry-specific use on the private firm side). The ONLY way that you can even begin to examine and explore heterogeneity of supply and demand in a way that allows us to predict actual behavior is through microeconomics.   




> And the total supply of land is what is in existence.


And that's where you, as an aggregate thinking collectivist, unwilling or incapable of reasoning at the level of the individual, continuously fail. 




> It is not true of the land market, because land is not produced.  As you say, everyone wants to buy low and sell high: whether land prices are generally low or generally high, either the buyer or seller isn't getting his way (during the bubble, sellers were happy, but buyers had to assume loads of debt, whereas now, sellers are all "woe is me" whereas buyers feel they're getting a great deal). * Because of this, the sale of land is not affected by price.*


Gibberish. Obfuscating geo-gibberish, as you focus on the idea of production as if that was the locus, or prime determinant for the supply of all goods.  And once again you did it -- you focused on "_the sale of land_", and not "the *supply* of land" (which requires no sale, but only availability at a given price).  




> In fact, price is affected exclusively by demand.


Which price? Market price? Demand price? Supply price? Tell me you're not pulling a Roy-semantics game by conflating every usage of the word price as if it means "past tense" market price exclusively.  Either way, you're so dead wrong it's pathetic.  Market price absolutely requires and is affected by, a consummation of both supply and demand.  Supply price is just a theoretical construct - as it is the lowest theoretical price at which a given quantity of commodities will be offered under given conditions.




> Every owner is a potential seller.  At all times.


In theory, yes, but who gives a $#@! about potential when we have the more important reality; one where we can observe that not every owner is a seller at all times, and certainly (and even more importantly) _not at all prices_. 




> Land changing hands does not affect the supply of land.


Only because you don't know what supply is. 




> The Egyptian Mohammed Ali taxed the ownership of date trees.  Result?  The trees were cut down to avoid the tax.  Supply was reduced.


Yes, that is one consequence of a market-distorting tax, no differently than shortages created by farmers who will DESTROY CROPS or give them away rather than sell them in the case of price controls, or the hidden tax inherent in hyperinflation.  The supply is destroyed in those cases because the commodity is perishable, or can be destroyed.  And in the real world, there are people who walk away from LAND to avoid paying mortgages and taxes they can no longer afford.  And there are even some who will destroy the property on the land, and many who would destroy the land itself if they could. Not just to avoid the tax, but to spite and sabotage the efforts of those who distorted the market and stood to benefit from that distortion in the first place. 

*QUESTION BEGGING STRAW MAN ALERT:*




> You stupidly think that the date trees only constituted supply if the owners of them were actively trying to sell them, but in reality, the supply of date trees was what was in existence, because others could possibly buy them from their owners...


Could you be any more wrong? The owners were not selling transplanted date trees. The trees that were taxed WERE NOT FOR SALE.  In essence it was the land that was taxed, on the basis of how many date trees it it had thereon. That was, regardless of the condition of each tree, and without regard to whether they even produced anything at all. A similar tax was placed on the produce, along with compulsion that dates be sold to Ali at prices which he determined.   

You stupidly think that all owners are automatically sellers, and that anything in their possession is part of "supply", given that others "could possibly buy them".  That's both moronic and far from reality.   The landowners who were unfortunate enough to have date trees in that time were never WILLING AND ABLE to sell the trees separately from their land in the first place.  And even if they could sell them, it would only be to those who were willing to undergo the same compulsory SLAVERY to a market-distorting tax _based on ownership of a resource_.  




> But once they were cut down, the supply was reduced.  And that's what happens when you tax things that are not fixed in supply: the supply is reduced.


Ask Pat if you can buy a clue, because your definition of supply is still whack. 

When they cut those trees down, *the supply was not reduced, because those trees were never part of any supply in the first place*.  Even if they were part of the supply (transplanted trees being bought and sold like other commodities), the artificial cost of ownership imposed by Ali would undergo two logical steps for any profit-maximizing date tree owner. Firstly, the trees would offered for sale at a reduced price. If the tax was great enough, that price would drop to zero, as trees would be offered up for free.  

"Hey, want to buy a date palm tree compulsory slavery contract with Ali -- cheap cheap?"  (market supply increases) 
"$#@! no, the tax makes it not worth it to own at all." 
"OK, do you want to take them off my hands for nothing? Just haul it away onto your land for free?"
"Hell no! I would just end up owing Ali, and there would be no benefit to me."
"OK, I understand, because that's the $#@! sandwich I've been put in." 
::: chop chop chop :::

Why? Because while date trees would have been cheap to buy, they were *not at all cheap to own* -- all because of a market value distorting tax.  ONE potentially high price to a seller, for outright ownership, turns into a perpetual RENTAL price (no ownership without paying that price) that NEVER ENDS.  Thanks for the "financing" on the interest-only loan, state. $#@! off. 




> They only drive up the rents to neighbors' land *to the extent that their neighbors' land is more economically beneficial to own*.


...for those who actually economically benefit, you mean -- like those who actually sell their land and take a profit.  It may be a NUISANCE to others, based on their preferences, tastes and values.  




> How are entrepreneurs going to make money investing in improvements that are not in demand?


Well, you're obviously not a entrepreneur, that's for sure. That is the beauty of it all -- the big difference between economists and theorists in a vacuum, and risk-taking entrepreneurs in the real world.  Demand is not just "an existing pie", nor is it fixed, inelastic or homogeneous.  It really is, in many cases a "Field of Dreams". Like pet rocks, or Casinos in the desert, or even Personal Computers.  Demand from the Entrepreneur Supply Side (in a free market) is all about risk, enticement, momentum, gravity and critical mass, and whole volumes of HUMAN BEHAVIOR factors that most economists are incapable of comprehending, and haven't the first clue how to accurately describe.  




> Well, you have it ass-backwards.  That's just a fact.  You don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building buildings in the hope that, someday, its cost will be justified.  Not if you want to remain in business.  High land values precede skyscrapers; they're what justifies such an intensive use of land.


Strawman.  Setting aside DUBAI (which thoroughly falsifies your claim), I never claimed that, as a rule, hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on a skyscraper in the hope that someday anything would occur.  You're the one that has the genesis completely ass-backwards, as a matter of absolute fact, because you don't see that it's lock-step.  

Imagine a stop-motion video of New York, Hong Kong, and Las Vegas, going from the distant past an on into the present. Large skyscrapers are preceded by smaller skyscrapers, which are preceded by buildings several stories high, etc., - the initial investment is made, the economic activity that follows feeds that investment, and fuels the growth of those buildings, no differently than trees.  That is not due to the "land values", which are only a consequence of the economic activity that resulted from all the initial improvements.     




> And there's also condominiums.  When George Jefferson made it, he moved to the East side, to a de-luxe apartment in the sky!


Yeah, when you live in a market that was built in a rabbit hole economy, all kinds of distortions occur.  The one thing that does attract and appeal to elites and elitists where vertical concrete hive monstrosities are concerned - Penthouse Apartments.  Being high in the sky, and "above" everyone else.  In other words, NOT MOST PEOPLE. 




> In point of fact, Midtown Manhattan is some of the most expensive land on earth, and that's so because so many people have such a strong desire to live there.  Manhattan's $#@!ing awesome.  While it's true that people who don't live there can enjoy the opportunities and amenities available in Manhattan, it's also true that it's very expensive and inconvenient to do so if you don't live near it.  That's why *the privilege* of living in Manhattan is so costly.  It's unfortunate that improvements are under-provided, because without that misallocation of resources, we'd all be much better off.


I have lived in Manhattan and Shanghai, and can appreciate what those of actual means see in them.  I can also see the mundane and the nightmare elements for those who are of limited means living in those cities.  So you're happy to party in "$#@!ing awesome" Manhattan, I see it.  But you also sound like a typically clueless liberal to me -- someone with a sociopathic disregard for the sacrifices required by all the millions of little worker bees who shoulder the real burdens that were never necessary in the first place. 




> The LVT would make owning a home far, far less expensive than it currently is.


Bull$#@!.  LVT would make BUYING a home less expensive -- just like date trees on Ali's turf would have been less expensive - TO BUY. LVT would not make OWNING a home less expensive. Quite the opposite, because the very mechanism by which the price did drop was through an artificially increase in THE COST OF OWNERSHIP.  The smart money didn't want to be on that economic treadmill either.  

FAIL.

----------


## idiom

If nobody wants to sell me land in Manhattan the supply of land in Manhattan is zero.

How hard is that.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> That is false.  Land is a canonical example of a factor in fixed supply.


Nothing to say to that, really, since your head is floating perpetually in macroeconomic theory clouds, and completely disconnected from reality. 




> I pointed out that your claimed supply was not supply.


Nobody cares about what you "pointed out", least of all me.  I pointed out that you were wrong, and pointed out where and why you were wrong.  Did that make a difference to you? Or did you just disagree, and predictably dismiss it as so much evil, lies, and despicable filth?




> That is the incorrect definition you are trying to put over.


It just wasn't your conveniently preferred (in this case macroeconomic) definition, Roy. As usual.  




> The existence of price implies willingness to sell.


Oh yeah? WHOSE willingness to sell, Roy? WHOSE? Everyone's? Does the market price of one person's house imply a willingness to sell, _let alone at that price_, on the parts of all of his neighbors who are not selling, and have no intention or willingness to sell? That's your ugly collectivist soup, Roy. That's your presumptuous collectivist mental tentacles reaching out and fabricating, imputing, and projecting utterly false assumptions onto others.  Icky nasty, Roy. Shame on you. 




> There is no price but the price something sells for.


We've been the rounds on that one.  You conveniently use the definition of market price as the only meaning for _all usage_ of the word price. The moment the word "price" is invoked, you immediately think market price only -- the price something actually DID sell for. In the past.  It is in that way that your collectivist poopy-pants tentacles can reach out to everyone else, and presume that they are all sellers, and that all goods and services are part of your favored, strictly macroeconomic definition, of "supply".  

Doesn't it make you physically ill that the real world doesn't conform to your preferred definitions?

----------


## Roy L

> The goalpost you moved is meaningless. The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof.  Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.


You're apparently trying to refute all of taxation economics.  You failed.  Land taxes don't have that effect, and neither does any other kind of tax.



> And that brings us to the Land Use Squeeze, and one of the reasons EcoWarriers(sic) and leftist greens are so enamored and supportive of LVT - because it artificially manipulates and herds whole societies into vertical monstrosities (thus countering the dreaded "urban sprawl").


No, that's just more of the usual stupid garbage from you.  LVT simply encourages the most appropriate and productive use of each site.  If that means more vertical development at a particular location, it's only because that makes more efficient use of the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities available there.  At a less advantaged location, another kind of development will be best.  No one would be "herded" into "vertical monstrosities."  Those who prefer to use more land of lower value would be free to do so.  But no mode of land use will be forced to subsidize any other, as they are now.  City-center land would see more vertical development, probably more parks, and far fewer vacant, weed-grown, and under-utilized lots.  That's a GOOD thing.



> Those who depend on land but want to avoid high taxes will use less land, will take less and build vertically instead, so that they can capture rents on all the capital improvements.


Nope.  You just still refuse to know the fact that LVT is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction.  People would have no reason to avoid "high taxes" on land any more than they avoid paying for the groceries they want.  They would simply voluntarily pay the public treasury the exact same amount of money they would otherwise voluntarily be paying a private landowner for doing nothing.



> Meanwhile, the state can respond to lost revenues from diminishing land values in a number of ways,


The obvious one being to increase the ad valorem tax rate, just as cities do now when property values decline.  You haven't understood the mathematics of LVT, which enables the tax amount to asymptotically approach the land rent as the tax rate rises and land value falls.



> two of which are, a) a portion of the increased rental values of the vertical horrors constructed can be imputed as land value increases,


IOW, LVT can be abandoned.  Of course LVT can be abandoned.  If it's short of revenue, the government can also round up all the blonde, 12-year-old girls and sell them as sex slaves in Bangladesh.  See what atrocities LVT would cause?



> and b) zoning and usage restrictions can be employed, withholding lands from specific markets, or from all markets altogether, which adds an addition artificial scarcity to the market supply, putting upward pressure on land values.


Nope.  Restricting supply can make the value of SOME land rise at the expense of other land (which is why private landowning parasites corrupt local governments to get use restrictions placed on other people's land), but it can't make total land value rise, any more than an art collector can increase the total value of his collection of Picassos by burning a few canvases.

----------


## Roy L

> If nobody wants to sell me land in Manhattan the supply of land in Manhattan is zero.


What is it that they are declining to sell you, then?  Peanut butter?

Ooops.



> How hard is that.


It's hard to credit that a human being could even imagine himself putting over a claim so self-evidently and indisputably false, absurd, and dishonest.

But when you have been advocating LVT as long as I have, you learn just what absurdity and dishonesty human beings are capable of when they decide to serve evil.

----------


## Roy L

> Nothing to say to that, really, since your head is floating perpetually in macroeconomic theory clouds, and completely disconnected from reality.


You're objectively wrong and you know it.



> Nobody cares about what you "pointed out", least of all me.


I realize you don't care about facts, logic or honesty.



> I pointed out that you were wrong, and pointed out where and why you were wrong.


No, you merely tried to substitute your incorrect definition for the correct one.



> Did that make a difference to you? Or did you just disagree, and predictably dismiss it as so much evil, lies, and despicable filth?


It was certainly that.  Thanks for admitting it.



> It just wasn't your conveniently preferred (in this case macroeconomic) definition, Roy. As usual.


There is no macroeconomic definition of supply.  You are just makin' $#!+ up again.  As usual.



> Oh yeah? WHOSE willingness to sell, Roy? WHOSE? Everyone's?


The owner's.



> Does the market price of one person's house imply a willingness to sell, _let alone at that price_, on the parts of all of his neighbors who are not selling, and have no intention or willingness to sell?


They are willing to sell at the market prices of their own properties, by definition.  The point is, *they are not willing to sell any more or less than their properties, no matter how high or low those prices might be*.  You just permanently refuse to understand that fact.



> That's your ugly collectivist soup, Roy. That's your presumptuous collectivist mental tentacles reaching out and fabricating, imputing, and projecting utterly false assumptions onto others.


It's true by definition.



> Icky nasty, Roy. Shame on you.


You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself.



> We've been the rounds on that one.


And you lost.



> You conveniently use the definition of market price as the only meaning for _all usage_ of the word price.


IT IS THE RELEVANT SENSE.



> The moment the word "price" is invoked, you immediately think market price only -- the price something actually DID sell for.


THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.



> In the past.


Or the present or future.



> It is in that way that your collectivist poopy-pants tentacles can reach out to everyone else, and presume that they are all sellers, and that all goods and services are part of your favored, strictly macroeconomic definition, of "supply".


All goods in existence are part of the supply.  The point of elasticity of supply for produced goods is that MORE of them will exist at higher prices and less at lower ones.  That is not the case with land.  It's just that simple.



> Doesn't it make you physically ill that the real world doesn't conform to your preferred definitions?


It does.  Which is why Manhattan doesn't get any bigger or smaller depending on landowners' whims.

----------


## Roy L

> Here is a point: you have not convinced any one here of the validity of your tax the privilege scheme. Thats a big fat fail in my book.


Just because you refuse to know facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil doesn't mean others similarly lack moral and intellectual courage.  If defeating evil ideas was easy, we'd be living in a utopia already.

----------


## Roy L

> There's no incentive to build vertically under the LVT.


More accurately, there's no *extra* incentive, only the free market's invisible hand incentive to use resources efficiently.

----------


## idiom

> What is it that they are declining to sell you, then?  Peanut butter?


I missed the part where I got supplied with land...

----------


## Roy L

> Bull$#@!.  It can and is, and that's easily proved.


Nope.



> If a Perfectly Benevolent Landlord bought land for the sole purpose of allowing the poor to use his superior land at the lowest possible costs to themselves, and without any profits (or losses) to the landlord himself - just a pure break even - the MINIMUM COST that the landlord would need to *pass along*, or *SHIFT proportionately*, would be that cost levied by the land value tax itself.


BZZZZZZZZZZT.  Fail.  That's not a market transaction.  You could with equal "logic" claim that a sales tax is NOT passed on to consumers because some benevolent store owner might decide to reduce all his prices proportionally.  You're simply not talking about economics any more, but only about whether some philanthropist can still afford to indulge his charitable impulse.



> The second proof - the falsification of that bunk claim that land rents cannot be passed along or shifted to tenants:


I sense that you are about to humiliate yourself again by essaying a fallacious, absurd and dishonest "argument," as you did above.



> It is possible for a landlord to make all LVT payments *without any other source of income besides rents from his tenants*.


Correct.



> How is that possible without the land rents being shifted to those tenants -- given that the tenants are the ONLY ONES producing anything in that particular scenario, and the only ones paying out any money at all?


They are paying all they are willing to pay in any case: i.e., the exact same amount they would be willing to pay the landowner if he was just pocketing the rents.  So their burden is unchanged, and none of the tax has been shifted onto them.  Only the landowner loses by the tax, which proves he cannot shift any of the burden onto his tenants.



> Is the landlord "paying" that, or is he just acting as a go-between as he takes from the tenants and gives it over to the $#@!ing state!


He is acting as a go-between.  He is paying the full tax because the value of his land has been removed.  No one will be willing to pay him anything for it, because it won't entitle them to pocket any rent.  He has therefore shouldered the entire burden of the tax.



> Not so slippery fast.  We were talking about supply. You know, the actual economic definition of supply, which makes it *a price-dependent variable*, even with land.


No, not with land, nor with anything else in fixed supply, like the paintings of a dead artist.



> The entire amount of land in existence is not "the supply".


Yes, in fact, it is.



> They are not the same thing, remember?


They are when supply is fixed.



> In the market/economic sense of supply, "_come into existence_" means "a given quantity is made available by a given seller at a given price over a given period of time".


No, it doesn't.  It means that more exists because MORE IS PRODUCED.  As land is not produced (by human labor at any rate), no more comes into existence.  That is very much the point.



> That is based on FIVE specific variables (ability to sell, willingness to sell -- a given quantity, at a given price, over a given period of time).  That applies to anything (including land).


No, it does not, as land is not produced over time and can only be sold or not sold.



> If an LVT of $ONE ZILLLION-GAZILLLION was levied (Land Rents times infinity),


LVT can't raise more than land rent times 1, because trying to raise more makes land value go negative.



> the "supply" of land, given that NOBODY could afford to pay the land rents, would be *100%*.  Supply can go to 100% in theory, but never beyond that.


The supply of land is always 100%.



> And remember (VERY IMPORTANT, NEVER FORGET) that *supply is a function of price*, as well as quantity and time.


Except when supply is fixed.



> Nearly ALL supply (of anything) theoretically approaches 100% _of whatever is humanly available_ as the price approaches 100% _of whatever is humanly possible_.  So why feign poop-stupid and pretend that claims of infinite supply are being made?


That comment is meaningless, poop-stupid gibberish with no basis in economic fact.



> See that, Matt? LVT "_...promotes vertical, rather than horizontal, development..._"  A claim made countless times by LVT proponents.


It would be more accurate to say that it removes the subsidy to sprawl.



> That's the trouble with being a blind-faith supporter of something you obviously don't fully understand.


LOL!  As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

----------


## EcoWarrier

> the fact remains that the LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.


That just needs narrowing down more. LVT can be passed onto the tenants. But not all of it as the misinformed think. If we changed over to LVT tomorrow the rents would not rise, as the market dictates the maximum rent tenants pay. If a landlord increased the rent, the tenant will move off. Landlords always charge the maximum they can get at any time.  There will be no great incentive for a landlord to raise rent under LVT as he will not be pay Income, Sales and other stealth taxes. 




> You just can't get anything right regarding LVT.


Steven gets many things wrong. He doen't know what is good for himself.  He also has a friend called Norman.

----------


## Roy L

> I missed the part where I got supplied with land...


<sigh>  You missed a lot of parts of a lot of things.

The supply of peanut butter doesn't mean YOU get supplied.  It means it's available for a price, same as the land.  If the price of peanut butter goes up, more will be produced.  But if the price of land goes up, no more will be produced.  That's all fixed supply means.

You will now refuse to know that fact.  Again.

----------


## idiom

Lets try a different approach to understand what geonomists are actually trying to claim.

Meet the O'Neill Cylinder. Its a proposed space colony that houses and feeds and employs millions.

  

LVT could not be applied here because there is no natural land here.

Geonomics would suggest that this colony with a large and dynamic economy would never experience a bust or boom simply because there is no natural land and thus no speculation on land.

Nobody would be able to amass a dishonest fortune here, there would be fortunes just not dishonest ones.

Nobody would be poor here.

There would be no unemployment.

There would be no layabout landlords here.

There would be no ongoing inflation.

The work week would be shorter.

There would be no black market.

If a government was to spend money here none of it would be embezzled.

And this is without LVT, simply because there is no natural land.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I keep returning to the question: Why are you here? Milton Friedman must have a forum some where, and Ron Paul would not agree with anything you say.


Geoism is true economic *freedom*. That is what this forum is about. 

Most here confused freedom with *freeloading*.  The current system encourages freeloading.  Many of richest people in the western world freedload.  Freeloading brought down the world economies in 1929 and 2008.

----------


## Roy L

> LVT can be passed onto the tenants.


No, it can't.



> But not all of it as the misinformed think. If we changed over to LVT tomorrow the rents would not rise, as the market dictates the maximum rent tenants pay. If a landlord increased the rent, the tenant will move off.


Right.



> Landlords always charge the maximum they can get at any time.


No, they don't.  That's just an assumption in economics.  Many landlords are lazy, and don't try to get all the rent they can.  Certainly I didn't when I was a landlord.  It wasn't worth it because the market was imperfect in so many other ways.  Some landlords raise rents when they get an increased property tax assessment; but again, that's just a lazy way of learning that the market rent has increased.



> There will be no great incentive for a landlord to raise rent under LVT as he will not be pay Income, Sales and other stealth taxes.


Incentive has nothing to do with it.  He can't affect supply or demand, so he can't affect price.



> Steven gets many things wrong.


And one of them is the same thing you just got wrong....



> He doen't know what is good for himself.


True.  Which wouldn't be a problem, if he didn't insist on imposing what is bad for himself on everyone else, too.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Land rent makes the Kuomintang the richest political party in the world. ... they also collect an enormous amount of graft.


This clearly shows the level of indocrinated freeloading mentality. He deliberately missed out the important bit.  Here is is :


_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._ 

Jeff Smith is clearly saying despite the corrupt governmnet, LVT ensures the Taiwanese economy is one of the most dynamic in the world.  Anyone can see what Jeff Smith was saying, but these brainwashed freeloaders even try and twist the truth.  Sad isn't it.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> No, it can't.


Roy, it can.  A part of it will be passed on. Not all and probably only a minority of the LVT due, but some will.  But the prime point is that: *rents will not rise because of LVT*, they will stay the same dictated by the market. The tenant cares not a hoot what the landlord's expenses are, only what he pays in rent.




> Many landlords are lazy, and don't try to get all the rent they can.  Certainly I didn't when I was a landlord.  It wasn't worth it because the market was imperfect in so many other ways.  Some landlords raise rents when they get an increased property tax assessment; but again, that's just a lazy way of learning that the market rent has increased.


I agree.  When I was a landlord I was reluctant to raise the rent as if the tenant moved off I may lose 1 to 2 months in rent which would take a while to claw back with the increased rent I charge with a new tenant. Just a pure simple business decision.

----------


## Roy L

> Ah lets examine that broadly distributed prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The policies of the Kuomintang after 1945 (LVT Land Reforms) were in many ways similar and just as devastating as those of the Japanese.


You again demonstrate the utter dishonesty invariably displayed by the anti-LVT attack dog.  You inserted "LVT Land Reforms" in the above sentence, which did not apppear in the original, as seen here:

http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5589&tmpl=printpage

You committed that despicably dishonest act to make it seem that LVT was part of the devastating Japanese occupation policies, which it was not.



> All land in the mountain areas was nationalised, for example, with Aborigines retaining only limited use rights;


Which increased broad-based prosperity by opening up opportunities to use such lands to more people than the 2% of the population that was aboriginal.



> 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...


So now LVT is even being blamed for the widespread assimilationist policies pursued by the governments of most advanced countries until a few decades ago.  How predictably dishonest.



> 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.


But increasing broad-based prosperity, as I said.  Modern intensive agriculture is far more productive than hunting, gathering, and slash-and-burn agriculture, and Taiwan's aboriginal people are now far better off than they were before the land reforms.



> 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."


"Their" land?  Question begging fallacy.  The FACT is, Taiwan's aboriginal people are far more prosperous since the LVT-based land reforms that "disenfranchised" them.

----------


## Roy L

> Roy, it can.  A part of it will be passed on. Not all and probably only a minority of the LVT due, but some will.


No.  It won't and can't.  None of it.

----------


## idiom

> You again demonstrate the utter dishonesty invariably displayed by the anti-LVT attack dog.  You inserted "LVT Land Reforms" in the above sentence, which did not apppear in the original, as seen here:
> 
> http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5589&tmpl=printpage
> 
> Which increased broad-based prosperity by opening up opportunities to use such lands to more people than the 2% of the population that was aboriginal.
> 
> "Their" land?  Question begging fallacy.  The FACT is, Taiwan's aboriginal people are far more prosperous since the LVT-based land reforms that "disenfranchised" them.


The inserted text was in parentheses and is apparent in the original at the link. I should probably have used square brackets, but they can do weird things with bb code. Only a severely poor reading would find that the Japanese had used LVT. They had used devastating policies, just not LVT ones. LVT does not have a monopoly on devastating minorities.

The entire point stands however. You see nothing wrong with moving people off their ancestral lands as long as you think it is for their own good.

Was Australia's policy of taking aboriginal children from their families and placing them in white homes justified by outcomes?

----------


## Roy L

> Proof? Not even tesla can attest to it.


Google "patent troll" and start reading.

----------


## idiom

> This clearly shows the level of indocrinated freeloading mentality. He deliberately missed out the important bit.  Here is is :
> 
> 
> _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._ 
> 
> Jeff Smith is clearly saying despite the corrupt governmnet, LVT ensures the Taiwanese economy is one of the most dynamic in the world.  Anyone can see what Jeff Smith was saying, but these brainwashed freeloaders even try and twist the truth.  Sad isn't it.


Taiwan is ranked 21st. But yeah. Thats kinda like 2nd.

The 'Taiwanese' got their kick by looting the entire gold reserve and intelligentsia of a major power then invading country and seizing the land of the locals and redistributing it. They executed a few very prudent Stalinist industrial plans which ended up being perfectly timed.

While they still have LVT they are running out of golden eggs. They have a bubble economy and runaway public debt.

But yeah, rah rah LVT.

----------


## Roy L

> Lets try a different approach to understand what geonomists are actually trying to claim.


You will now lie about what geonomists claim.



> Meet the O'Neill Cylinder. Its a proposed space colony that houses and feeds and employs millions.
> LVT could not be applied here because there is no natural land here.
> Geonomics would suggest that this colony with a large and dynamic economy would never experience a bust or boom simply because there is no natural land and thus no speculation on land.


No, it would just never experience a land boom or bust.



> Nobody would be able to amass a dishonest fortune here, there would be fortunes just not dishonest ones.


No, there'd just be no opportunity to amass a dishonest fortune by owning land.



> Nobody would be poor here.


That's quite likely: it would be very expensive to live there.



> There would be no unemployment.


As above.



> There would be no layabout landlords here.


Definitely not!



> There would be no ongoing inflation.


Inflation is a monetary phenomenon that is worsened by land speculation in our debt-money economy, but is not a direct result of landowner privilege.



> The work week would be shorter.


Doubtful.



> There would be no black market.


Hard to say.



> If a government was to spend money here none of it would be embezzled.


Blatant strawman.



> And this is without LVT, simply because there is no natural land.


Some people do claim too much for LVT, but I've never seen anything like the above.

----------


## Roy L

> The 'Taiwanese' got their kick by looting the entire gold reserve and intelligentsia of a major power then invading country and seizing the land of the locals and redistributing it. They executed a few very prudent Stalinist industrial plans which ended up being perfectly timed.


Sorta like the Soviets did in Eastern Europe?



> While they still have LVT they are running out of golden eggs. They have a bubble economy and runaway public debt.


Absurd claims with no basis in fact.

----------


## Roy L

> The inserted text was in parentheses and is apparent in the original at the link.


You didn't give the link, and the inserted text was a fabrication by you.



> I should probably have used square brackets,


You should probably have tried to be honest.



> Only a severely poor reading would find that the Japanese had used LVT.


No, it's what you plainly and dishonestly tried to imply.



> They had used devastating policies, just not LVT ones. LVT does not have a monopoly on devastating minorities.


The Taiwanese aboriginals don't look devastated to me.



> The entire point stands however.


No, it's been proved a fabrication.



> You see nothing wrong with moving people off their ancestral lands as long as you think it is for their own good.


I don't care if it's for their own good.  Landowning doesn't get any less evil if aboriginals do it.



> Was Australia's policy of taking aboriginal children from their families and placing them in white homes justified by outcomes?


I really couldn't say.  What does that have to do with the thread?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Nope.  You just still refuse to know the fact that LVT is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction.


Yeah, once we get past that little detail of the involuntary, non-market-based, non-beneficiary-pay, non-value-for-value transaction called, "The state has a monopoly claim on all land rents".  Once we get past that little coup that many would see as *theft*, it's all voluntary sailing after that! Why, after that, we're all just shopping in Roy's Progressive LVT Land Rent Store! YAY!  All voluntary, doncha know. If you don't want to pay (perpetual, never-ending rental fees to the state) for a resource, don't use that resource!  See? It's all voluntary! WAHOO!!! 

Why, once we establish that it's just One Big Happy Collectivized Monopolistic Land Rent Store, we can then reason that "People would have no reason to avoid "high taxes" on land any more than they avoid paying for the groceries they want."

Forget that it's a moronic analogy, as groceries are perishable and NEVER RENTED OUT.  And forget that there would be no option to grow the "land=groceries" you need (not simply want) should the Monopolistic State Land Grocer decide to get gross with his Groceries=Land Rental Prices.  




> They would simply voluntarily pay the public treasury the exact same amount of money they would otherwise voluntarily be paying a private landowner for doing nothing.


And forget that if everyone was a private landowner, there would be no "voluntary" payment due to any "fellow" private landowner in the first place.  




> IOW, LVT can be abandoned.  Of course LVT can be abandoned.  If it's short of revenue, the government can also round up all the blonde, 12-year-old girls and sell them as sex slaves in Bangladesh.  See what atrocities LVT would cause?


Oh yeah, I can see the atrocity of slavery as a result of LVT, but not directly, and certainly not as a result of rounding up 12 year-old blondes.  The state does not have a history of rounding anyone up and selling them anywhere as sex slaves of which I am aware. Does it? 

But do tell me, Mr. Argument-By-Strawman-Ridicule Salesman, do you have anything more in the state's historical size and color we could look at? You know, a shoe that actually fits? Something more in the realm of *absolute probability, not just possibility, based on actual present behavior and past history* of the state?  Any real precedences that might give us an idea of what the state *would likely do* in such a case?  




> Restricting supply can make the value of SOME land rise at the expense of other land (which is why private landowning parasites corrupt local governments to get use restrictions placed on other people's land), but it can't make total land value rise, any more than an art collector can increase the total value of his collection of Picassos by burning a few canvases.


That's where your macroeconomics head in the vacuum has failed you, as you obviously don't know anything about the economics of art, or long term demand with respect to rare and unique works. Hell, for that matter, you don't even believe that value is subjective!  Worse yet, you're trying to reckon art using a standard commodity supply and demand model. It doesn't work that way, Roy.  Your example of an art collector who tries to increase the value of his Picasso (of all artists!) collection, by "burning a few canvasses" was truly pathetic.  Anyone who has dealt in the worlds of art and collectibles, and I have, knows that art value follows the economics of scarcity -- anything rare, unique, in finite supply and high in demand. It is entirely subjective, completely unpredictable, and the lower the supply and greater the demand, the more difficult, if not impossible, it is to model. It certainly does not follow a typical commodity supply and demand curve. 

If a thousand wealthy collectors of a certain specific collectible genre are all aware that _only three_ of a certain unique work, already high in demand within that genre, are known to exist, those particular pieces have greater value (IN THE EVER-SUBJECTIVE MINDS OF CERTAIN COLLECTORS), precisely because there are only three. Then comes the knowledge that two of these extant works were recently destroyed (we'll say in a fire, accidentally and not deliberately), such that every collector is now absolutely certain that only ONE piece remains.  It is ENTIRELY conceivable that the one remaining piece could be valued, and ultimately priced in exchange at many times the sum total prior exchange rates of the original three works, had all three have survived.  That could be for no other reason than the prestige in owning THE ONLY ONE, and only because ONE COLLECTOR felt strongly enough about it to outbid the THREE OTHER COLLECTORS who were also willing to pay handsomely for that same prestige.

----------


## idiom

> Sorta like the Soviets did in Eastern Europe?


Chiang was heavily influenced by the soviets yes. He got a lot luckier with his timing though.




> Absurd claims with no basis in fact.




One Analysts thoughts:




> Banks are now in the late stages of their credit cycle. After over a decade of loose lending, Taiwan faces the prospect of  a bursting housing bubble and a crisis in tech, where the companies are turning into zombies and refusing to die. Credit tightening should accelerate the seasoning process. We reiterate our SELL recommendations on all the market’s banks, especially since earnings should be front-loaded this year. For those who must be in the sector, we suggest Chinatrust for its credit-card franchise and prudent credit policy.
> 
> Easy access to credit over 2000-10 led to overinvestment in commodity-tech such as Dram, panels, LED and solar. Housing now faces poor affordability and oversupply. Property prices rose 133% over the past 10 years, but vacancies increased from 13% to 19% over the same period.
> 
> Though the timing of the bust is hard to predict, credit tightening should accelerate the seasoning process. It will not only trigger failures and financial restructuring in tech, but also pressure  mortgage borrowers and property developers. Tightening will lead to increasing demand for consumer-credit and home-equity loans, while trends in the unorganised money-market rate (ie, loan sharks) and dishonoured cheques suggest signs of trouble.
> 
> Earnings should be front-loaded this year, with revenue peaking in 1H12 before credit costs start to catch up. Revenue will contract as loan-pricing competition intensifies. NIMs are set to fall as unding costs increase due to an unfavourable change in the deposit mix. Provisions will rise due to the worsening  tech and property  outlook, higher reserve requirements and lower recoveries.
> 
> Though the sector looks well capitalised under current regulations, it would need to raise NT$260bn (US$9bn) if it implemented IFRS 4, the new provision policy and Basel 3 today. Banks like Chang Hwa Bank, First and Taishinare under the most pressure to recapitalise.
> ...

----------


## idiom

While we are here...




> What people have a natural liberty right to do is USE land, not to appropriate it.


If capital starts off as land, and we can't appropriate land, how does capital come to exist as property, not subject to LVT?

Also, if the landowners are somehow forcing the rest of the community to increase land values then wouldn't the more precise mechanism be a 100% capital gains tax on land?

Next, the notion of using land rent to get people change how they use land seems eerily similar to deliberately debasing currency in order to stop people 'hoarding' cash.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> "The state has a monopoly claim on all land rents".


The land rents are commonly created wealth and do not belong to the landowner. They are *reclaimed* to pay for public/common services and leave people's private income alone. Giving them the *freedom* to spend *all* the money they earned as they please.

----------


## idiom

Henry George argues that self-ownership is the moral basis of ownership of any property.




> What constitutes the rightful basis of property? What is it that enables a man justly to say of a thing, "It is mine!" From what springs the sentiment which acknowledges his exclusive right as against all the world? Is it not, primarily, the right of a man to himself, to the use of his own powers, to the enjoyment of the fruits of his own exertions? Is it not... the fact that each particular pair of hands obey a particular brain and are related to a particular stomach; the fact that each man is a definite, coherent, independent whole -- which alone justifies individual ownership? As a man belongs to himself, so his labor when put in concrete form belongs to him.


You disputed this here:




> Garbage. Self-ownership is a logical contradiction.





> Ownership includes four distinct powers, one of which is the power of dispostion or transfer.  You can't transfer yourself to anyone else, because you are immutably inside your own body.  No one else can operate your body, perform labor with it, etc.


What is your alternate moral basis for ownership?

I am being more careful with citations so that you will hopefully not infer things that are not in the text.

----------


## torchbearer

I no know what to do

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Henry George argues that self-ownership is the moral basis of ownership of any property.


You are some sort of air-head. Henry George DID NOT say what you wrote above. Henry George wrote, "which alone justifies individual ownership? "  Note the question mark. 

George was saying land ownership is not justified where the value and resources are privately appropriated. He did say all you work for with your mind and hands is 100% yours.  *FREEDOM* in its purest form. Appropriating the value and resources of land is *FREELOADING*.

Boy are you slow. I now see why you post colorful pictures now.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I no know what to do


Look up Geonomics.

----------


## idiom

> You are some sort of air-head. Henry George DID NOT say what you wrote above. Henry George wrote, "which alone justifies individual ownership? "  Note the question mark.


Meet the Rhetorical Question. The entire passage is composed of them.

The context was not land, but self-ownership.

What, then, ecowarrier, is the moral root of ownership?

----------


## matt0611

I don't want to pay off the deficit I want the government to stop spending money we don't have.

----------


## idiom

> Nope.  Wrong _again_.  The exemption is for actual use, not notional use (i.e., citizens who were not using their exemptions elsewhere would actually have to be living there), and is by value, not area.


Living above or behind your business is pretty common the world over.

Even if your enterprise took up most of a skyscraper, if you filled the lower floors or basements with rooms for interns, and used some of the top floors as executive penthouses, your entire business would be running tax free.

Why wouldn't you want to live near where you work.

So... the entire weight of government falls on those who use to much land to game with exceptions, like farmers who would mystically not be able to charge more for produce and so would go bust. There's a useful outcome.

The more interesting distortion would be the people living in shacks on top of big box stores and malls.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I don't want to pay off the deficit I want the government to stop spending money we don't have.


The government can make as much money as it likes.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Meet the Rhetorical Question. The entire passage is composed of them.
> 
> The context was not land, but self-ownership.
> 
> What, then, ecowarrier, is the moral root of ownership?


Henry George was NOT against ownership - you and other air-heads have continually been told this.  He was against landowners appropriating commonly created wealth that crystalize as land values and appropriating common resouces in land.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Originally Posted by Me
> 
> Unlike you, I already knew what microeconomics meant. Here's a clue: this debate centers around a macroeconomic issue.
> 
> 
> Oh, you wish it was, and that's how you're desperately trying to frame it, as that would appeal to your collectivist sensibilities. That is also the only way you can insist on referring to land supply as fixed and perfectly inelastic - seeing everything only "economy-wide", in the collective -- with the more controversial _aggregate demand and aggregate supply_ (as if that meant anything at all, since virtually everything, productive and non-productive, used and non-used, can be counted as part of "the economy").


LOL!  Honestly, what is one to say here?  Here we're talking about a tax, and you're claiming that I'm somehow nefarious for considering the macroeconomic implications of the tax!  Macroeconomics is what's used to consider tax policy, Steven.

You were off in the woods before, Steven, but you now reside somewhere beyond this solar system.  You have descended into pure absurdity.




> Inelasticity of land supply for "the economy", in the aggregate, breaks down utterly and completely when you pull your head out the aggregate "economy-wide" ass void, and view land strictly from the level of the individual and/or competitive firm, and also examine supply in terms of "availability to use" (e.g., zoning laws on the public sector control side, or industry-specific use on the private firm side). The ONLY way that you can even begin to examine and explore heterogeneity of supply and demand in a way that allows us to predict actual behavior is through microeconomics.


We're not considering the particular behaviors of individuals and firms; we're considering the overall impact on the economy.  That's what matters.




> And that's where you, as an aggregate thinking collectivist, unwilling or incapable of reasoning at the level of the individual, continuously fail.


LOL, I'm perfectly capable of reasoning at the level of the individual; it's just that I'm aware doing so will not give the full picture.




> Gibberish. Obfuscating geo-gibberish, as you focus on the idea of production as if that was the locus, or prime determinant for the supply of all goods.


LOL!  Obviously, it is!




> And once again you did it -- you focused on "_the sale of land_", and not "the *supply* of land" (which requires no sale, but only availability at a given price).


All land is available at a given price.  By definition!




> Which price? Market price?


Obviously.




> Demand price? Supply price? Tell me you're not pulling a Roy-semantics game by conflating every usage of the word price as if it means "past tense" market price exclusively.  Either way, you're so dead wrong it's pathetic.  Market price absolutely requires and is affected by, a consummation of both supply and demand.  Supply price is just a theoretical construct - as it is the lowest theoretical price at which a given quantity of commodities will be offered under given conditions.


The supply of land is fixed.  Prices are determined by demand.




> In theory, yes, but who gives a $#@! about potential when we have the more important reality; one where we can observe that not every owner is a seller at all times, and certainly (and even more importantly) _not at all prices_.


So what?  All land is sold at some price, and therefore all land counts as supply.




> Only because you don't know what supply is.


*You* don't know what supply is.  Clearly.




> Yes, that is one consequence of a market-distorting tax, no differently than shortages created by farmers who will DESTROY CROPS or give them away rather than sell them in the case of price controls, or the hidden tax inherent in hyperinflation.  The supply is destroyed in those cases because the commodity is perishable, or can be destroyed.


Or sometimes it's not destroyed, but less is simply produced.  That happens more frequently.




> And in the real world, there are people who walk away from LAND to avoid paying mortgages and taxes they can no longer afford.


Right.  But, conspicuously, that doesn't reduce supply.




> *QUESTION BEGGING STRAW MAN ALERT:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				You stupidly think that the date trees only constituted supply if the owners of them were actively trying to sell them, but in reality, the supply of date trees was what was in existence, because others could possibly buy them from their owners...
> 			
> 		
> ...


No, it was a tax on the trees.  Cutting them down in fact allowed them to avoid the tax.  Whether the trees were "for sale" (which, for you, seems to mean the owners were actively pursuing buyers) or not, they count as supply.




> You stupidly think that all owners are automatically sellers, and that anything in their possession is part of "supply", given that others "could possibly buy them".


That's what supply is.




> That's both moronic and far from reality.   The landowners who were unfortunate enough to have date trees in that time were never WILLING AND ABLE to sell the trees separately from their land in the first place.


Of course they were willing and able.  Are you saying that if someone offered the equivalent of a $1M per tree they wouldn't have sold them?  That's nonsense.  




> And even if they could sell them, it would only be to those who were willing to undergo the same compulsory SLAVERY to a market-distorting tax _based on ownership of a resource_.


The tax is irrelevant to the fact that the amount of trees in existence constitutes supply.  Trees, not being fixed in supply, will increase in supply when demand for them is high, and decline in supply when demand for them is low.  Land, being fixed in supply, just sits there and exist regardless of how much people are willing to pay for it.




> Ask Pat if you can buy a clue, because your definition of supply is still whack. 
> 
> When they cut those trees down, *the supply was not reduced, because those trees were never part of any supply in the first place*.


Yes, of course they were.  As dates were in demand, people planted and kept trees to supply the demand for dates.  It's utterly bizarre for you to claim that trees planted for production somehow don't constitute supply.




> ...for those who actually economically benefit, you mean -- like those who actually sell their land and take a profit.  It may be a NUISANCE to others, based on their preferences, tastes and values.


No, I mean for those who are willing and able to use the land productively, and avail themselves of the benefits inherent in use of the land.




> Well, you're obviously not a entrepreneur, that's for sure. That is the beauty of it all -- the big difference between economists and theorists in a vacuum, and risk-taking entrepreneurs in the real world.  Demand is not just "an existing pie", nor is it fixed, inelastic or homogeneous.  It really is, in many cases a "Field of Dreams". Like pet rocks, or Casinos in the desert, or even Personal Computers.  Demand from the Entrepreneur Supply Side (in a free market) is all about risk, enticement, momentum, gravity and critical mass, and whole volumes of HUMAN BEHAVIOR factors that most economists are incapable of comprehending, and haven't the first clue how to accurately describe.


People don't build hundred-million dollar buildings that way.  Or, at least, not for long.




> Strawman.  Setting aside DUBAI (which thoroughly falsifies your claim), I never claimed that, as a rule, hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on a skyscraper in the hope that someday anything would occur.  You're the one that has the genesis completely ass-backwards, as a matter of absolute fact, because you don't see that it's lock-step.


How's that working out for Dubai, by the way?  They had enough cash to try it, but it's pretty apparent that is not a sustainable strategy.  Thanks for providing an example that proves you wrong.




> Imagine a stop-motion video of New York, Hong Kong, and Las Vegas, going from the distant past an on into the present. Large skyscrapers are preceded by smaller skyscrapers, which are preceded by buildings several stories high, etc., - the initial investment is made, the economic activity that follows feeds that investment, and fuels the growth of those buildings, no differently than trees.  That is not due to the "land values", which are only a consequence of the economic activity that resulted from all the initial improvements.


Sigh.  Land values are just a reflection of the benefit of owning a particular location.  Tall buildings are built because lots of people want to avail themselves of the benefits of living and or working in a particular area.




> Yeah, when you live in a market that was built in a rabbit hole economy, all kinds of distortions occur.  The one thing that does attract and appeal to elites and elitists where vertical concrete hive monstrosities are concerned - Penthouse Apartments.  Being high in the sky, and "above" everyone else.  In other words, NOT MOST PEOPLE.


Yet, strangely, most Americans live in major metro areas.  Hmmmm....




> I have lived in Manhattan and Shanghai, and can appreciate what those of actual means see in them.  I can also see the mundane and the nightmare elements for those who are of limited means living in those cities.  So you're happy to party in "$#@!ing awesome" Manhattan, I see it.  But you also sound like a typically clueless liberal to me -- someone with a sociopathic disregard for the sacrifices required by all the millions of little worker bees who shoulder the real burdens that were never necessary in the first place.


They live there because that's where the opportunities are.  It's sad that they live in dwellings that are of a much lower quality and much higher price than need be, and that they must put up with all the problems associated with poverty, but that's the system you fiercely defend.  Some of us want to do something about it.




> Bull$#@!.  LVT would make BUYING a home less expensive -- just like date trees on Ali's turf would have been less expensive - TO BUY. LVT would not make OWNING a home less expensive. Quite the opposite, because the very mechanism by which the price did drop was through an artificially increase in THE COST OF OWNERSHIP.  The smart money didn't want to be on that economic treadmill either.  
> 
> FAIL.


It'd make buying them and owning them cheaper.  People would no longer have to pay for the land and pay taxes on top of it; their payment for land would *be* their tax burden.  With more efficient usage and allocation of land, more dwellings would be supplied, which would reduce the cost of dwellings.  Additionally, as I mentioned before, they'd avoid a good deal of interest -not only would they no longer pay interest on the land portion of real estate, but they'd also pay less interest due to dwellings being cheaper.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Living above or behind your business is pretty common the world over.
> 
> Even if your enterprise took up most of a skyscraper, if you filled the lower floors or basements with rooms for interns, and used some of the top floors as executive penthouses, your entire business would be running tax free.
> 
> Why wouldn't you want to live near where you work.
> 
> So... the entire weight of government falls on those who use to much land to game with exceptions, like farmers who would mystically not be able to charge more for produce and so would go bust. There's a useful outcome.
> 
> The more interesting distortion would be the people living in shacks on top of big box stores and malls.


Which part of "the exemption is by value, not area" are you having trouble understanding?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Which part of "the exemption is by value, not area" are you having trouble understanding?


Oh No!!!  Do not try and get him to think.

----------


## matt0611

> The government can make as much money as it likes.


Of course it CAN, it can also nuke as all today if it likes.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Macroeconomics is what's used to consider tax policy, Steven.


How is that working out for us, Matt? 




> We're not considering the particular behaviors of individuals and firms; we're considering the overall impact on the economy.  That's what matters.


There is no "the economy".  That's a blanket term used to hide the artificially selected winners and losers in statist-distorted micro-economies.  Whenever you see terms like "the economy" and "economy-wide", think _whose_.  Always.  If you and I comprised "the whole economy", and I owned half the wealth and you owned the other half, I could slit your throat and assume ownership of your half, and "the overall impact on the economy", which you say is all that matters, is a zero sum gain, since 100% of "the economy" is still there and doing just fine.  If you say that "the economy" has lost your productivity in the process, I will say that is not even a problem, let alone a minor one, as "the economy" can recover from the loss of you just fine by making superior substitutions, as I can always bring others into "the economy" to make up for that. I can say that one individual needed to go "for the greater good", because after all, Matt, _the overall impact on the economy_ is all that matters, right?   




> LOL, I'm perfectly capable of reasoning at the level of the individual; it's just that I'm aware doing so will not give the full picture.


Reasoning at the individual level(s) is the ONLY way to get the full picture.  Not blurring millions of microeconomic pictures into one nebulous, collectivized shape-shifting blob with no regard for the individual.   




> All land is available at a given price.  By definition!


Change "is" to "was", and you will be correct. By definition. 




> The supply of land is fixed.  Prices are determined by demand.


You are referring to the "stock", or overall inventory of land on Earth. The actual supply of a given quantity of land is determined by the price that sellers are both able _and willing_ to sell.  The number of sellers is always finite for any given price, and is never all-inclusive of all owners, since some have no price.  OR, you can plot their price, for their quantity, at "infinity".  




> So what?  All land is was sold at some price, and therefore all land counts once counted as supply for that time at that given price.


There, I fixed it for you for greater accuracy.  




> Of course they were willing and able.  Are you saying that if someone offered the equivalent of a $1M per tree they wouldn't have sold them?


I wouldn't be so arrogant or presumptuous as to answer for someone else either way. To know the answer to that question, you would have to actually make such offer, to see whether or not _that particular individual_ was WILLING to sell at that particular price (thus making it part of supply at that price, for that particular time), wouldn't you? 




> Land, being fixed in supply, just sits there and exist regardless of how much people are willing to pay for it.


Gibberish. There is absolutely nothing real world or meaningful about what you just wrote. 

Land _that is already owned_ just sits there alright..._as each landowner's possession_.  Buyers' desire, as a function of _ability and and willingness_ to pay for a given quantity of land is nothing more than a finite spectrum of _specific buyers_ and _specific bid prices_ on the demand side. They don't control the supply. PROOF: If a given prospective buyer offers .25 cents, he will quickly learn that the supply (available to him), for that price, is a finite quantity - fixed for that price. Since supply is a function of willingness of an owner to sell a given quantity _at a given price_), the supply of land at .25 cents is likely to be ZERO. 

Now, keep increasing the bid upward from .25 cents, and eventually MORE SUPPLY (*the quantity which some owners will become willing sellers at that given price*) will increase. 

The supply is whatever land actually is made available by _owners-who-choose-to-become-sellers_, of a given quantity, at a given bid price. The past *market price* (always in the past) MIGHT serve as a guide for both buyers and sellers, but it does not dictate the future "market price" for a given parcel of land to either of them. The New Market Price (of that parcel) is not established until an owner is willing to sell and a buyer is willing to buy, and ONLY at a point where the supply and demand prices equal one another.   




> As dates were in demand, people planted and kept trees to supply the demand for dates.  It's utterly bizarre for you to claim that trees planted for production somehow don't constitute supply.


Nice slippery "planted for production" qualification. What is utterly bizarre (albeit consistent with how you think) is that you would automatically think they do constitute supply. 

A man plants and cultivates an orchard of walnut trees on ten acres of land.  The only "supply" from that orchard is whatever quantity of a thing that the owner demonstrates (or declares) he is willing to make available to the market at a given price.  It is not the trees, but only the fruits therefrom.  The trees (and the orchard/land itself even) MIGHT be considered supply on their own, as part of a different market.  *But we wouldn't know that unless* a) the owner offered the trees/wood/land/etc., for sale (i.e., did become a seller, by definition), or b) an offer was made and accepted by the owner, and/or c) a counter-offer of a different asking price was made.  Until then, we have not established a specific "supply" for anything but the walnuts that are already being supplied.  




> No, I mean for those who are willing and able to use the land productively, and avail themselves of the benefits inherent in use of the land.


That's your collectivist, economies-manipulating geoinsanity speaking. 




> How's that working out for Dubai, by the way?  They had enough cash to try it, but it's pretty apparent that is not a sustainable strategy.  Thanks for providing an example that proves you wrong.


Hardly. You are the one who made the claim that people don't just invest hundreds of millions of dollars into skyscrapers hoping that something would eventually happen. Dubai proved you absolutely wrong on that point.  They can, and do. I didn't say it was a good idea, or even that it would work for them. Their risk, their reward. You're the only one who gives a $#@! about that, as you are the only one between us that has a desire to manipulate whole economies through state arrogation of rents for an entire factor of production. Not me.   




> Yet, strangely, most Americans live in major metro areas.  Hmmmm....


Yes, just like most Americans use debauched fiat currency, and for some strange reason, don't save.  Hmmmm...




> It'd make buying them and owning them cheaper.


Bull$#@!. It would make buying them, *not owning them*, cheaper.  By design.  Something that is "bought" can actually be "paid for". In full.  Under LVT, the concept of  "owning them" is not "cheaper, because it is not ownership at all. That concept is fully distorted, as it can NEVER be bought and paid for in full. Thus, "ownership" is nothing but a rental, as the cost of "ownership" imposed by the tax, as a condition of "ownership", is tantamount to a rental fee for usage only, paid to the state - the entity you want permanently enthroned as the ultimate owner under a geocommunist regime. 




> People would no longer have to pay for the land and pay taxes on top of it; their payment for land would *be* their tax burden. 
> With more efficient usage and allocation of land, more dwellings would be supplied, which would reduce the cost of dwellings. Additionally, as I mentioned before, they'd avoid a good deal of interest -not only would they no longer pay interest on the land portion of real estate, but they'd also pay less interest due to dwellings being cheaper.


That's where you went completely goofy-loopy, and completely blind.  Under LVT, people would still pay for improvements, just like now. Those can be paid for in full, just like now.  Their "payment for land" would be a tax shift of all taxes, as they are shifted to LVT, and paid in perpetuity. They would pay less interest *on the dwellings*, even as the land itself is treated  *exactly like an interest-only, variable interest rate loan* -- the worst and most predatory of all loans, because there is absolutely no path to ownership, no ability to escape the artificial treadmill imposed, no control over the "interest rate" (the actual mill rate multiplier of the assessed land value), and no economic security that comes from true ownership. _For anyone._   So no, whatever principle and interest they no longer pay to a previous owner is more than made up for *on crack* in perpetual interest payments to the state.

----------


## Roy L

> Henry George argues that self-ownership is the moral basis of ownership of any property.


No.  And even if he did argue that (he doesn't), I neither call nor consider myself a "Georgist," and thus don't feel obliged to defend his arguments.

What the passage you quoted (and -- surprise! -- altered) said was that a man BELONGS to himself, not that he OWNS himself.  The term "individual ownership" refers to property ownership BY individuals, not OF individuals.  That is clear from the context you edited.  A man's self-belonging is not ownership of property, because it is immutable as a matter of physical fact: he can't transfer himself to anyone else.



> What is your alternate moral basis for ownership?


I have already stated it.  You own the fruits of your labor (and the fruits of others' labor that you obtain in consensual transactions) because that does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have, while if someone took it from you, that WOULD deprive you of something you would otherwise have.



> I am being more careful with citations so that you will hopefully not infer things that are not in the text.


How about just quoting the text as it is?  What a concept!

----------


## MattintheCrown

> How is that working out for us, Matt?


A lot better than using microeconomics would, LOL.




> There is no "the economy".


Oh lawd.  Here we go...




> That's a blanket term used to hide the artificially selected winners and losers in statist-distorted micro-economies.  Whenever you see terms like "the economy" and "economy-wide", think _whose_.  Always.  If you and I comprised "the whole economy", and I owned half the wealth and you owned the other half, I could slit your throat and assume ownership of your half, and "the overall impact on the economy", which you say is all that matters, is a zero sum gain, since 100% of "the economy" is still there and doing just fine.  If you say that "the economy" has lost your productivity in the process, I will say that is not even a problem, let alone a minor one, as "the economy" can recover from the loss of you just fine by making superior substitutions, as I can always bring others into "the economy" to make up for that. I can say that one individual needed to go "for the greater good", because after all, Matt, _the overall impact on the economy_ is all that matters, right?


Yeah, so anyhow, Macroeconomics is what we use to analyze tax policy.




> Reasoning at the individual level(s) is the ONLY way to get the full picture.  Not blurring millions of microeconomic pictures into one nebulous, collectivized shape-shifting blob with no regard for the individual.


At the individual level, landowners lose the rent of their land.




> Change "is" to "was", and you will be correct. By definition.


No need.




> You are referring to the "stock", or overall inventory of land on Earth. The actual supply of a given quantity of land is determined by the price that sellers are both able _and willing_ to sell.  The number of sellers is always finite for any given price, and is never all-inclusive of all owners, since some have no price.  OR, you can plot their price, for their quantity, at "infinity".


The supply of a given quantity?  The supply of land is fixed.  You can continue to talk nonsense, or accept the fact and move on.




> So what? All land is was sold at some price, and therefore all land counts once counted as supply for that time at that given price.
> 			
> 		
> 
> There, I fixed it for you for greater accuracy.


No, you just neglected present and future tenses.




> I wouldn't be so arrogant or presumptuous as to answer for someone else either way.


Oh please.  You'll just go to any lengths to avoid the point, won't you?




> To know the answer to that question, you would have to actually make such offer, to see whether or not _that particular individual_ was WILLING to sell at that particular price (thus making it part of supply at that price, for that particular time), wouldn't you?


Not really, because we know the tree exists.  It will trade for some price.  We don't know the price, but under all but the most exceptional of circumstances, it will trade for a fairly predictable price, based on rational behavior of market participants.  That's what economic models exist for.




> Land, being fixed in supply, just sits there and exist regardless of how much people are willing to pay for it.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Gibberish. There is absolutely nothing real world or meaningful about what you just wrote. 
> 
> Land _that is already owned_ just sits there alright..._as each landowner's possession_.  Buyers' desire, as a function of _ability and and willingness_ to pay for a given quantity of land is nothing more than a finite spectrum of _specific buyers_ and _specific bid prices_ on the demand side. They don't control the supply. PROOF: If a given prospective buyer offers .25 cents, he will quickly learn that the supply (available to him), for that price, is a finite quantity - fixed for that price. Since supply is a function of willingness of an owner to sell a given quantity _at a given price_), the supply of land at .25 cents is likely to be ZERO. 
> 
> Now, keep increasing the bid upward from .25 cents, and eventually MORE SUPPLY (*the quantity which some owners will become willing sellers at that given price*) will increase. 
> ...


No, that is false.  The supply is fixed.




> Nice slippery "planted for production" qualification. What is utterly bizarre (albeit consistent with how you think) is that you would automatically think they do constitute supply.


Of course they do.  A 5 year old could tell you that.  In fact, anyone who hasn't consciously chosen to refuse to know what supply is could tell you that.  This is really, really simple stuff.  We're not talking about some complex concept here.  The only reason you're having trouble is that you realize the implication of the fact that land is fixed in supply is troubling to your world view (and you have so much invested in opposing it, and would feel rather silly conceding defeat on the point now).




> A man plants and cultivates an orchard of walnut trees on ten acres of land.  The only "supply" from that orchard is whatever quantity of a thing that the owner demonstrates (or declares) he is willing to make available to the market at a given price.  It is not the trees, but only the fruits therefrom.  The trees (and the orchard/land itself even) MIGHT be considered supply on their own, as part of a different market.  *But we wouldn't know that unless* a) the owner offered the trees/wood/land/etc., for sale (i.e., did become a seller, by definition), or b) an offer was made and accepted by the owner, and/or c) a counter-offer of a different asking price was made.  Until then, we have not established a specific "supply" for anything but the walnuts that are already being supplied.


That's just false.  Consider, instead of trees, buildings.  A nation is rapidly advancing, and people are building homes and businesses.  An economist would say that the nation was becoming more wealthy, and that the supply of buildings was increasing.  The buildings not need to be placed on a realtor's website to be part of supply: their existence constitutes supply, period.




> That's your collectivist, economies-manipulating geoinsanity speaking.


Its the current system that manipulates the economy: systematic privilege for landowners.




> Hardly. You are the one who made the claim that people don't just invest hundreds of millions of dollars into skyscrapers hoping that something would eventually happen. Dubai proved you absolutely wrong on that point.


Actually, I said they don't if they want to stay in business.  And you can see how Dubai has proved me right.




> They can, and do. I didn't say it was a good idea, or even that it would work for them. Their risk, their reward. You're the only one who gives a $#@! about that, as you are the only one between us that has a desire to manipulate whole economies through state arrogation of rents for an entire factor of production. Not me.


But your point rested on it working.  You offered it as a strategy.  I countered, explaining it doesn't work that way.  It's just a means for going broke is the vast majority of circumstances.




> Yes, just like most Americans use debauched fiat currency, and for some strange reason, don't save.  Hmmmm...


No, not really.




> Bull$#@!. It would make buying them, *not owning them*, cheaper.  By design.  Something that is "bought" can actually be "paid for". In full.  Under LVT, the concept of  "owning them" is not "cheaper, because it is not ownership at all. That concept is fully distorted, as it can NEVER be bought and paid for in full. Thus, "ownership" is nothing but a rental, as the cost of "ownership" imposed by the tax, as a condition of "ownership", is tantamount to a rental fee for usage only, paid to the state - the entity you want permanently enthroned as the ultimate owner under a geocommunist regime.


Blah blah blah.  By this "reasoning" there isn't a single homeowner in the US, right now.




> That's where you went completely goofy-loopy, and completely blind.  Under LVT, people would still pay for improvements, just like now. Those can be paid for in full, just like now.  Their "payment for land" would be a tax shift of all taxes, as they are shifted to LVT, and paid in perpetuity. They would pay less interest *on the dwellings*, even as the land itself is treated  *exactly like an interest-only, variable interest rate loan* -- the worst and most predatory of all loans, because there is absolutely no path to ownership, no ability to escape the artificial treadmill imposed, no control over the "interest rate" (the actual mill rate multiplier of the assessed land value), and no economic security that comes from true ownership. _For anyone._   So no, whatever principle and interest they no longer pay to a previous owner is more than made up for *on crack* in perpetual interest payments to the state.


Nope.  Because under LVT, instead of paying taxes to the government, and then paying a landowner for access to what your taxes just paid for, you simply pay the government once.  Your burden is halved.  And again, land is allocated more effectively, reducing prices for pretty much all forms of wealth, including dwellings.

----------


## Roy L

> Living above or behind your business is pretty common the world over.


And if you want to use your UIE there, be my guest.



> Even if your enterprise took up most of a skyscraper, if you filled the lower floors or basements with rooms for interns, and used some of the top floors as executive penthouses, your entire business would be running tax free.


Possible but unlikely.  As I said, the UIE would be for roughly 20% of per capita land rent, and skyscrapers tend to make economic sense only when the land is extremely valuable.  The floor space being used for residential could not easily be used for business, and the people living there could just as easily use their UIEs elsewhere, so there's no real reason to try to get them to use their UIEs on space in the building they work in.



> Why wouldn't you want to live near where you work.


I can think of lots of reasons, but it's irrelevant: some people would like to do that, others wouldn't.



> So... the entire weight of government falls on those who use to much land to game with exceptions, like farmers who would mystically not be able to charge more for produce and so would go bust. There's a useful outcome.


I'm curious: how do you prevent yourself from knowing the fact that plenty of farmers farm rented land; they don't charge more for their crops; and they don't go bust?  LVT is just the market land rent.  Instead of paying taxes to fund government services and infrastructure and then paying land rent for access to the services and infrastructure your taxes just paid for, you would pay only for the services and infrastructure, but you would pay the government that was providing them, and eliminate the payment to the landowner for doing nothing.

WHY DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR GOVERNMENT *TWICE*?



> The more interesting distortion would be the people living in shacks on top of big box stores and malls.


You are astronomically far from understanding the fact that LVT is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction.  The market land rent paid to the public treasury would be exactly the same amount people would voluntarily pay a private landowner for use of the same land.  The shacks on top of big-box stores make no economic sense, because the people in them could apply their UIEs anywhere.  Why would they consent to live in shacks on big-box stores?  How could such an arrangement make economic sense for the store owner under LVT, if it doesn't now (leaving aside zoning problems)?  And if it did make economic sense (there are certainly buildings where apartments are located above retail and/or commercial space), what would the problem be?

----------


## awake

So the Georgists would have a monopoly government set the tax rate on lands and in turn redistribute that collection to the community? And tax it a 100% to boot? How is this not complete communization of land?

Rothbard pulls your thread with this statement...

"...Thus, pure site value could never be found in practice, and the single tax program could not be installed except by arbitrary authority."

Arbitrary authority making impossible tax calculations of land used or unused is simply re-inventing the state.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> No.  And even if he did argue that (he doesn't), I neither call nor consider myself a "Georgist," and thus don't feel obliged to defend his arguments.


No, you just quote him a lot, tout his theorem as if it was the eighth wonder of the economic world, and add in your own fifty cents as a Roy L remix. 




> What the passage you quoted (and -- surprise! -- altered) said was that a man BELONGS to himself, not that he OWNS himself.  The term "individual ownership" refers to property ownership BY individuals, not OF individuals.


It's that kind of semantic hair-splitting and definition-torturing that makes you so entertaining to me, Roy.  




> A man's self-belonging is not ownership of property, because it is immutable as a matter of physical fact: he can't transfer himself to anyone else.


Ergo, in Roy's lexicon, "ownership" is of property, and property cannot be considered property without the ability to "transfer" said ownership. He cannot transfer "himself" (whatever that means to Roy, which is not clear or defined), so we'll invoke a "non-ownership" term called "belonging", or "self-belonging".    

You have your own lexicon of LVT Political Correctness, Roy. Cute as $#@!, I just want to tussle your hair (assuming you have any) and give you a big noogie! 

Your unique, peculiar framework, while in reality a George-spawned mutation (like so many Keynesian-spawned mutations in economics today) is not, like you said, "Georgist". Not strictly. No more than Lutherans can be said to be Catholic.  Neither is it quite in line with other Georgists, geolibertarians, geoists, generic "single taxers" (yada yada), and other protestant factions of the original Georgist Mother Church.  But that's OK to you, I suppose, because while they may not be on the LVT Straight and Narrow, at least they are on the "right track", headed generally in the "right direction".  At least they can "learn", yeah?  So hat off to you, for the herculean effort and energy you must expend trying to get everyone -- including fellow LVT "single tax" proponents at times - to reason, precisely and exactly, from your highly constrained, incredibly complex, tightly interwoven and most of all *intensely dogmatic* paradigm! 

Tiny congregation you've got there under your little tent, Roy, but man oh man, nobody can pound and rock the LVT Antipropertarian Hellfire and Brimstone Revival Pulpit the way you can!

----------


## MattintheCrown

> No, you just quote him a lot, tout his theorem as if it was the eighth wonder of the economic world, and add in your own fifty cents as a Roy L remix.


I don't believe I've seen Roy ever quote George.  He certainly doesn't quote him often.  And you should know, the Henry George Theorem is not a product of George himself; it was named in his honor.  Joe Stiglitz came up with it.

FYI, George's writings are great stuff, and you'd actually probably rather enjoy them if you could ever get over yourself.  George had a real way with words.  Sadly, if anyone dares quote him, said person will get accused of "worshiping" George, so it's just not worth it.



ETA: on further consideration, I think Roy did quote George once fairly recently.  IIRC, he quoted part of the intro to "Protection or Free Trade," which is on of my favorite passages.  Still, Roy quotes George less than I do, and I don't quote George frequently.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> A lot better than using microeconomics would, LOL.


How would you know that? 




> Yeah, so anyhow, Macroeconomics is what we use to analyze tax policy.


Yeah, pay no attention to the track record behind the curtain.




> At the individual level, landowners lose the rent of their land.


They lose a hell of a lot more than that.  




> Not really, because we know the tree exists.  It will trade for some price.  We don't know the price, but under all but the most exceptional of circumstances, it will trade for a fairly predictable price, based on rational behavior of market participants.  That's what economic models exist for.


You're giving a lot more credit to models than they deserve, and inferring facts about them that are not in evidence, even by those models.  Just like physics (the ones classical economists VERY loosely borrowed from), models can be _probabilistically_ and _generally_ predictive. But they dictate nothing, and at the quantum level they fall completely apart. But you don't know that, Matt, because you're all fuzzy collectivist forest, in a vacuum, at a distance, with not a single tree in sight. 

You honestly think that because some, or even most, particles behave(d) in a certain way, under a given set of conditions, that ALL particles should/would/will behave in exactly the same way. It is from this absolute disregard for individuals, except as collectivized and averaged, that you are able to reach your completely false, erroneous conclusion, or assumption, that "It (meaning each, every and all) _will_ trade for some [fairly predictable] price". 

You even go to the point of dismissing any individuals that do not fit your preferred model as _"under all but the most exceptional of circumstances"_.  And now that we have treated real, irrational human beings as collectivized, averaged particles, we can make the mental leap that ALL OWNERS are sellers by default, and that EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE, regardless of ownership, is part of a generalized, collectivized, nebulous thing called "supply". No choice, no individual willingness needed now that we already know this. We have studied this, the behavior is generally predictable, and we can deduce that _They will [all] sell at some price._ 

As the tired old joke goes: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" If the answer is yes, comes the response, "Now that we have established what you are, let's get real about the price."  The collectivist moron presumption skips the preliminary setup question altogether. They already assume that since whores abound that everyone is a whore, and so that's how everyone is treated.  

The next leap comes (now that we have macroeconomic models of predictable human behavior from which the social engineers can work from and take from there) is the question of _what price_. We no longer need to ask individual owners, since we have already determined that they don't determine prices anyway. The Demand Price Tail has probabilistically wagged the Owner Willingness To Sell Dog.  We already know his "willingness" to sell in the future already (at some price), based on models of the past.  Comes the next leap, since we have eliminated INDIVIDUAL CHOICE (willingness to sell) on the part of the owner as a predictable foregone assumption, and that is for a *Competent Appraiser* to step in and determine for the owner what his supply price WOULD HAVE BEEN (realistically, let's be "reasonable" about this after all), or what that owner-presumed-seller-at-all-times WOULD have sold a thing for. 

The only question in my mind after that is: What size wood chipper would be required in which to fit all these sociopathic, clueless, macro-meddling pointy-heads?




> A 5 year old could tell you that.


Yeah, that makes perfect sense, as I think one just did. 




> The buildings not need to be placed on a realtor's website to be part of supply: their existence constitutes supply, period.


How very Marxist of you, calling other people's $#@! your "supply", without actually checking with the owner. Oh, that's right. In the geocommunist framework, the real "supplier", and therefore owner of all land, is the state. 




> But your point rested on [Dubai] working.  You offered it as a strategy.


The $#@! it did. How dishonest of you. By "a" strategy, and using the words "You offered", you mean to imply that it was "my" strategy, or one I thought would work.  It wasn't.  It was an example of a strategy employed that you claimed WAS NOT DONE.  Period.  We don't know the outcome of that little experiment yet, because we aren't far into the future looking back at skycraper ruins.  Whether it works FOR THEM as a strategy or not, however, was strictly your trip down that rabbit hole, in an attempt to escape the fact that your were DEAD WRONG. 

EDIT: One thing I'm absolutely sure of: If Dubai is ultimately successful, and LVT is implemented in Dubai _following that success_, the very existence of those skyscrapers, all the economic activity from whence they were erected, will be attributed, by some idiot child who is devoid of critical thinking skills, to LVT.





> By this "reasoning" there isn't a single homeowner in the US, right now.


Depends on how you define homeowner, doesn't it?  But now you're catching on. Whether any actual homeowners exist in the US right now or not, those who are compelled to pay property/land taxes are certainly not among them.  They are "homeowners" in label only.  In reality they are renters, and those who oppose taxes on individuals on the basis of ownership are what I would call victims of extortion.  




> Because under LVT, instead of paying taxes to the government, and then paying a landowner for access to what your taxes just paid for, you simply pay the government once.


Oopsie, you skipped one.  Forget the moronic question begging assumption that land is "what your taxes just paid for" - I reject that $#@! outright - If you were an actual landowner (an opportunity everyone should have), then you would have paid another landowner, not for "access", but rather a full transfer of ownership.  

And "you simply pay the government once" is UNADULTERATED BULL$#@!! Did you forget something?  There is no "once" payment to the government, and you know it. Unless you just got lazy and left out the once [PER TIME PERIOD]. It is perpetual. Never ending.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So the Georgists would have a monopoly government set the tax rate on lands and in turn redistribute that collection to the community? And tax it a 100% to boot? How is this not complete communization of land?


It is Geoists. The market dictates the tax.  Land VALUE tax. It does not redistribute. It reclaim community created wealth to pay for community services.  Get it?

It is a tax shift. Land ownership and title stays the same. Business behavior stays the same - except the focus will be on enterprise not parasitical activities. 




> "...Thus, pure site value could never be found in practice, and the single tax program could not be installed except by arbitrary authority."


All those around the world who use LVT have no problem in valuing the land.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> How would you know that?


Because I know what microeconomics is.




> Yeah, pay no attention to the track record behind the curtain.


Sigh.  It's not like microeconomics is some competing school with macroeconomics.  It's just the same stuff applied in a different way: instead on the economy as a whole, it's applied to specific situations.




> They lose a hell of a lot more than that.


Nope.  They lose the land rent.




> You're giving a lot more credit to models than they deserve, and inferring facts about them that are not in evidence, even by those models.  Just like physics (the ones classical economists VERY loosely borrowed from), models can be _probabilistically_ and _generally_ predictive. But they dictate nothing, and at the quantum level they fall completely apart. But you don't know that, Matt, because you're all fuzzy collectivist forest, in a vacuum, at a distance, with not a single tree in sight. 
> 
> You honestly think that because some, or even most, particles behave(d) in a certain way, under a given set of conditions, that ALL particles should/would/will behave in exactly the same way. It is from this absolute disregard for individuals, except as collectivized and averaged, that you are able to reach your completely false, erroneous conclusion, or assumption, that "It (meaning each, every and all) _will_ trade for some [fairly predictable] price".


Good god.  It's not that, Steven, it's simply a matter of I'm willing to know that the general circumstance is what's important, and that exceptions to those circumstances aren't frequent enough to be of consequence to the general point.




> You even go to the point of dismissing any individuals that do not fit your preferred model as _"under all but the most exceptional of circumstances"_.  And now that we have treated real, irrational human beings as collectivized, averaged particles, we can make the mental leap that ALL OWNERS are sellers by default, and that EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE, regardless of ownership, is part of a generalized, collectivized, nebulous thing called "supply". No choice, no individual willingness needed now that we already know this. We have studied this, the behavior is generally predictable, and we can deduce that _They will [all] sell at some price._


We don't have perfect knowledge, Steven.  There's no other way to do economics than to make realistic assumptions.  Duh.  All you're doing now is ditching economics entirely.

You've now opted to just become intentionally ignorant of economics, and permanently ineducable.  If that what you feel you have to do to avoid admitting you are wrong, whatever.  But I'd suggest that it's a worse path to take.




> The next leap comes (now that we have macroeconomic models of predictable human behavior from which the social engineers can work from and take from there) is the question of _what price_. We no longer need to ask individual owners, since we have already determined that they don't determine prices anyway. The Demand Price Tail has probabilistically wagged the Owner Willingness To Sell Dog.  We already know his "willingness" to sell in the future already (at some price), based on models of the past.  Comes the next leap, since we have eliminated INDIVIDUAL CHOICE (willingness to sell) on the part of the owner as predictable and irrelevant, and that is for a *Competent Appraiser* to step in and determine for the owner what that price WOULD HAVE BEEN (realistically, let's be "real" about this after all), or what that owner-presumed-seller-at-all-times WOULD have sold a thing for. 
> 
> The only question in my mind after that is: What size wood chipper would be required in which to fit all these sociopathic, clueless, macro-meddling pointy-heads?


I have little doubt that that is indeed the only question in your mind.  




> How very Marxist of you, calling other people's $#@! your "supply", without actually checking with the owner. Oh, that's right. In the geocommunist framework, the real "supplier", and therefore owner of all land, is the state.


That's not Marxist, Steven, that's how economics is done.  From Adam Smith on down, every economist considers all the buildings in a country part of that country's supply of buildings.  Their sales status just isn't relevant.




> The $#@! it did. How dishonest of you. By "a" strategy, and using the words "You offered", you mean to imply that it was "my" strategy, or one I thought would work.  It wasn't.  It was an example of a strategy employed that you claimed WAS NOT DONE.  Period.  We don't know the outcome of that little experiment yet, because we aren't far into the future looking back at skycraper ruins.  Whether it works FOR THEM as a strategy or not, however, was strictly your trip down that rabbit hole, in an attempt to escape the fact that your were DEAD WRONG.


It was your strategy.  Here's your idiotic theory, which you presented in post 214:



> Now for the Neat Trick - the insidious consequence and side effect, regardless of anyone's intent: 
> 
> Since a downtown skyscraper (or casino in the desert) with lots of "community activity" automatically raises the land rents/LVT on all empty adjacent parcels in its vicinity, all a developer needs to do in order to price the majority of the population completely out of neighboring land market (in terms of LVT cost of ownership ONLY) is concentrate on developing his own small parcel of land! That automatically makes all the remaining parcels in the vicinity -- including empty lots -- cost prohibitive to all but the most well-healed developers.


You paint this picture of nefarious developers pricing people out of all land -or something.  It's not really coherent.  But the point is, it is in fact a strategy you offered.  It's $#@!ty that you made me go back and find it, and worse still that I had to read it again.  Shame on you.  By the way, here's what I actually said:



> Well, you have it ass-backwards. That's just a fact. You don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building buildings in the hope that, someday, its cost will be justified. Not if you want to remain in business. High land values precede skyscrapers; they're what justifies such an intensive use of land.


Note I never said no one ever had or would do that -just that you don't do it if you want to remain in business.  It's just not how things work generally, because it's ass-backwards; it's a massive gamble that rarely pays off.




> EDIT: One thing I'm absolutely sure of: If Dubai is ultimately successful, and LVT is implemented in Dubai _following that success_, the very existence of those skyscrapers, all the economic activity from whence they were erected, will be attributed, by some idiot child who is devoid of critical thinking skills, to LVT.


Well, the land in Dubai is owned by the state.




> Depends on how you define homeowner, doesn't it?


Right.  By your definition, there are no American homeowners.  So your point is, uh, kinda pointless.




> But now you're catching on. Whether any actual homeowners exist in the US right now or not, those who are compelled to pay property/land taxes are certainly not among them.  They are "homeowners" in label only.  In reality they are renters, and those who oppose taxes on individuals on the basis of ownership are what I would call victims of extortion.


The alternative is feudalism.




> Because under LVT, instead of paying taxes to the government, and then paying a landowner for access to what your taxes just paid for, you simply pay the government once.


Ownership is means to access.  Duh.




> And "you simply pay the government once" is UNADULTERATED BULL$#@!! Did you forget something?  There is no "once" payment to the government, and you know it. Unless you just got lazy and left out the once [PER TIME PERIOD]. It is perpetual. Never ending.


I don't mean you make a single payment, I mean you only pay for one time when you pay.  Taxes are always ongoing, as services are ongoing.  Duh.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> It is Geoists. The market dictates the tax.  Land VALUE tax. It does not redistribute. It reclaim community created wealth to pay for community services.  Get it?
> 
> It is a tax shift. Land ownership and title stays the same. Business behavior stays the same - except the focus will be on enterprise not parasitical activities.


Yes, LVT geoist not care if black LVT cat or white LVT cat, so long as it catch mice for LVT. It no redistribute, it only reclaim to pay for service to help the LVT cat.  Get it?

----------


## Zippyjuan

I ran some numbers as to what an LVT would cost in another thread.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Hood-Tax/page3

I assumed the US budget was the same size it is now and you paid for all of it via LVT.  If you tax only cities, it came to over $63,000 an acre- about 50% higher than the median income.   If you include all farmlands and grazing lands, it drops down to about $3500 an acre per year- but that is also about 1.5 times the current average value per acre of that land too (just over $2000 an acre).  That will discurage people from having farms (say goodbye to your food production or food prices would soar by multiples so the farmers could afford to pay the taxes (the taxes are due every year, the purchase price of the land is one- time)- so much for not being able to pass along the tax to consumers- or they will simply go out of business and everybody starve to death) or if you exclude the farm and rangeland, nobody can afford to live in the cities.  This is our economic nirvana brought to us via the LVT?

For comparison's sake, the highest state property tax average is less than three percent.   The tax on farmland would be over 150%.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Sigh.  It's not like microeconomics is some competing school with macroeconomics.  It's just the same stuff applied in a different way: instead on the economy as a whole, it's applied to specific situations.


More accurately, microeconomics is applied TO ALL specific situations, whereas macroeconomics is applied only to those deemed Big Enough To Manipulate, and Too Big To Fail. 




> We don't have perfect knowledge, Steven.  There's no other way to do economics than to make realistic assumptions.


Interesting choice of words. What does that mean, "do economics"?  Economics is supposedly descriptive, predictive, and informative. Not normative.  When you say "do economics" you are going outside of the merely informative, using your theories and interpretations to support the normatives you advocate; shoulds, oughts -- major policy decisions. Actual central planning and macro-engineering.  (BTW, EcoWarrier[sic] thinks I'm saying "Norman" - just humor him).  




> Duh.  All you're doing now is ditching economics entirely.


I didn't know there was a single collectivized, homogeneous blob called "economics" to ditch. That's like Roy thinking that because "weeza hatesa [HIS ICKY-ASS VERSION of] gubmint" that automatically means that we are against government in general.  That's arrogant, presumptuous and non-self-aware.  Did you consider that it is possible that I am ditching only what I consider BAD economics, Matt -- incorrect theories, baseless assumptions, and all the misapplied policies based thereon? 




> From Adam Smith on down, every economist considers all the buildings in a country part of that country's supply of buildings.  Their sales status just isn't relevant.


How ironic that you should invoke Adam Smith. I know geolibs love quoting Smith because of his position on the Land Value Tax.  However, just as Keynes is considered to be the father of modern the macroeconomics you rely on in support of the tax, Adam Smith is widely considered to be the father of the microeconomics that you don't personally find necessary, relevant or applicable to tax policy.  And it's no wonder, as microeconomics attempts to describe granular reality at all scales, as it is the study of how people interact and how markets actually work. Macroeconomics (the Keynesian-spawned statists' whore, IMO) only concerns itself with how governments can manipulate people and markets.


Let's finally clear some more macroeconomics apples to microeconomics oranges once and for all. Not for you, but for others reading:

The definition of supply I use comes from microeconomics, and is absolutely 100% accurate in that context (as cited and sourced in previous posts) - AKA reality, at the only level that is truly important _in my mind_; the individual -- _each and every one_ -- not jointly, collectively, or averaged in any way.  The definition of supply you are using comes from macroeconomics, and is 100% accurate, but ONLY in that context, where ONLY THE WHOLE is considered -- "the economy", as individuals are blurred, or averaged out into virtual nonexistence, or irrelevance, in deference "to the whole" - which is the only thing that matters to collectivist statists and others such as yourself. 

Here's a treatment on the law of supply in one context from one textbook that actually distinguishes the macro from the micro, at least at the level of industrial use of land:




> *Supply of Land:* 
> 
> Supply of land, *from the point of view of an economy*, is perfectly inelastic. It means the total supply of land in an economy cannot be increased. Supply of land is free for an economy, as it has no cost of production. 
> 
> *Supply of land for an industry* depends on its opportunity cost. If opportunity cost of land increases in one industry compared to another industry, then more of it will be used in the former industry than the latter. Thus, supply curve of land for an industry will slope upward. It means supply of land will increase with rise in its price and decrease with fall in its price. 
> 
> *Supply of land is perfectly elastic so far as a competitive firm is concerned.* It means at the price fixed by industry, a firm can use as much land as it requires.


So you can stop with the claims that the definition of supply I am using is "incorrect", and so will I.  If you want to be intellectually honest about this, you can argue that the definition is "inapplicable" (and then actually argue why).  I have stated above why I believe yours is inapplicable, as it has no regard for the individual. You claim that macroeconomics and microeconomics are not "competing schools", and yet you and Roy BOTH attempt to describe individual behavior from a branch of economics that does not even pretend to do such a thing.  That's obfuscation (or ignorance) on both your parts. 




> Here's your idiotic theory, which you presented in post 214:
> 
> You paint this picture of nefarious developers pricing people out of all land -or something.


Yeah - and/"or something".  I painted a picture of a natural consequence of LVT, which occurs with or without anyone's intent, nefarious or otherwise. Understanding the natural consequences of an artificial policy can definitely provide a strategy, but that is beside the point.  

More on that in my next post.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> More on that in my next post.


LOL.   The internet eagerly awaits.

----------


## Steven Douglas

* LVT, GROUND RENTS & STATE CAPTURE RATIONALE* (and why a casino owner specifically should favor such a "single tax")

Let's say that I am a visionary who builds a casino in the middle of a desert and promotes it. Eventually it takes on an economic gravity of its own, as more and more people come to take advantage of all the opportunities and amenities *induced by the casino*.  Over time a primarily entertainment and gambling based economy blossoms in the middle of the desert. 

As a casino owner, I now have a small problem. I (along with each customer by extension), am now subject to a wide range of taxes.  All all those taxes -- gambling, property, sales, capital gains, etc., could go completely away under LVT, as they are "shifted" to a Land Value Tax.  That seems like A Very Good Thing. For me *specifically*, at least.  

As a profit-maximizing Casino owner, I should LOVE LVT (assuming it really was a single tax), given that it is particularly suited to favor my type of business. The ONLY reason I would favor it over other taxes is the same reason any financial services firm should love it: because *my ratio of economic activity to land is much, MUCH higher than literally anyone else's*. By nature.  And the higher I stack that financial activity, the greater my profits.  Of course, that also increases the land value of mine and surrounding lands, but that's incidental, to me at least, as it is my economic activity specifically that is causing that increase. 

As a casino owner, I am fully aware that people are coming to take advantage of the privately owned, non-shared, non-public, for-profit *capital investment* on my privately owned land.  I am not so blind or daft as to think for a moment that people are flocking to be in (or near) my casino because they heard about all the wonderful "community infrastructure" and "community created wealth".  I know that's complete and utter bull$#@!.  The common infrastructure that I share with everyone is a necessary, but wholly incidental part of a very small cost that is shared in common with others, with no profit-taking on anyone's part for it.  Likewise, the other private entities that show up to take advantage of opportunities bring opportunities of their own: so the more the merrier, because that's Division of Labor at work, and everybody wins, as a desert that once offered nothing but hard, dry dust, was seeded with a casino, and now sports a burgeoning Oasis -- Something For Everybody.   

*ENTER LVT AND ITS ENHANCED GRAVITY EFFECT* 

Eventually LVT is imposed, forget the details, as a tax on the basis of 100% annual land rents only.  Magically, there is no other tax, as they have all been shifted to LVT as a single tax. That is an enormous windfall for me in particular, because while my land is valued relatively high, it is only due my *ratio of economic activity to required land*. 

The owner of the new skating rink next door did not fare so well.  He paid/owes a lot for his property, hoping to profit from some of the traffic I drew in, but value of his land (along with land anywhere in close proximity) is now assessed as being of comparable value to the land my casino is on.  That represents a cost of ownership increase that has literally priced the skating rink owner, and a few of my non-casino-owning neighbors, off of their land.  The skating rink uses the same amount of land as I do, but will never, ever enjoy the same *land-to-economic-activity ratio* that I enjoy.  His land might be "efficiently used", but only for that specific purpose, and only from his point of view -- not the state's, and not those chomping at the bit for the opportunity to set up shop next to a casino. 

Result: Bye-bye skating rink. And bye-bye anyone else who must now keep up financially with neighbors in the artificially induced *Concentrated Cost of Ownership Zone*. Those who cannot keep pace must move away from the casino to cheaper land, and all because they cannot pull in enough economic activity (PER SQ. FT) to support the same Land Value Tax rates _that my casino caused in the first place_, based on the nature of my going concern, and its ability to draw in the largest paying crowd. So I am happy, because LVT encourages and rewards those with the least dependency on land, along with the densest concentration of financial activity, while shifting the bulk of the tax burden onto those with the greatest dependency on population and land, but without a high ratio of income to land required for use.  

In other words, LVT is special privilege tax, as it is particularly well suited to special types of industries and firms.  Well, its proponents would argue simply that it is "more efficient land use".  What do I care? Yay for me and other casinos, and hooray especially for banks, brokers, insurance companies, developers, and any rent-seeking firm with a *high financial activity to land use ratio*. They are the clear winners, all of whom are seen as "more efficient" by the aggregate-only thinking geonomists under the new LVT regime. 

Oh, and what about actual residences near the casino?  Hehehe...they're the biggest losers of all, because they aren't even firms.  Nothing "productive" about homes in the macroeconomic sense. Not unless you're a home developer or lender.  Houses are not geared competitively for high LVT either.  As as casino owner, however, I think I'll do just fine with my house.  Time for some expensive improvements on my house -- make the nearby land more desirable so that I can get those land values up.  As a bonus, I'll have geoists arguing that none of my improvements - not the casino or the house, have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do the value of the underlying land.  Talk about useful idiots as economic allies! I'm not that stupid. Thanks to LVT, I now have a mechanism for clearing out all the "less productive" :::sngt!:::  riff-raff from my neighborhood. 

*LVT - THE RADIAL PERIMETER BURNER EFFECT*

So take the case of a landowner who is simply content to exist, serve, and live a quality life, and who is not prone to, or needing, artificially induced economic growth for the sake of growth alone; someone who does not require heavy local traffic, or whose business is not inherently geared for a *high financial-activity-to-land ratio* (as not all are equal by nature in that regard).  Under an LVT regime, the very worst thing that can happen to that landowner is for a big fat Disney, or a casino, or anything else that draws a big paying crowd _into itself_, to plop its ass down and buy up land anywhere nearby. The cost of ownership is about to heat up, despite the fact that not all businesses or industries are geared the same way (nor need they be under normal circumstances). The blind LVT macro-assumption is that all economic activity is "_good for the community_", and therefore automatically good for everyone therein. The _economic wealth-siphoning heat_ from a Big Behemoth is what "soaks into the ground". That is what radiates outward, as land values rise (along LVT as a cost of ownership), regardless of specific land use, and regardless of whether there really was any "increased economic benefit" to that particular landowner.  

LVT proponents have their own spin on all of this, of course, as well as, I am sure, disagreement with what I've written or how I've characterized it. It doesn't matter. It is obvious to me why LVT has always been an easy smack down, which has nothing to do with Roy's characterizations of opponents as evil, murdering apologists for landowner privilege.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Yes, LVT geoist not care if black LVT cat or white LVT cat, so long as it catch mice for LVT. It no redistribute, it only reclaim to pay for service to help the LVT cat.  Get it?


Steven you are confused - this we all know. Yes, who cares what color the collection is.  

*Geoism reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services. But as a great side affect it distributes, not redistributes, wealth more fairly in a society than any other economic system*. The variations of LVT implementations around the world clearly, with glowing lights, show this.

In other parts of the world LVT is not implemented however they capture the wealth in the natural resources the land provides - Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that to the point their is no personal income tax.

Combine that with LVT and masses of commonwealth is reclaimed by the community - then economic freedom for all.  No Income, Sales, Inheritance and every other stealth tax.  Men are released from slavery keeping the fruits of their labors to spend as they please.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> As a casino owner, I am fully aware that people are coming to take advantage of the privately owned, non-shared, non-public, for-profit *capital investment* on my privately owned land.  I am not so blind or daft as to think for a moment that people are flocking to be in (or near) my casino because they heard about all the wonderful "community infrastructure" and "community created wealth".  I know that's complete and utter bull$#@!.  The common infrastructure that I share with everyone is a necessary, but wholly incidental part of a very small cost that is shared in common with others, with no profit-taking on anyone's part for it.


That is absolute tripe!

The casino owner needs roads, airports, etc, for customers to go to his casino. Also the hotels for customers, shops, schools for the employees, restaurants, electricity, sewers, water pipes, water reservoirs, hospitals, leisure facilities, etc. All of which without, the casino would make little to no money.

Without people the casino makes zero profit. The casino owner pays LVT on his valuable land which he contributed to, but the vast majority of *the value in the land was created by the surrounding economic community activity that soaked into the land crystallizing as land values*. 




> The owner of the new skating rink next door did not fare so well.  He paid/owes a lot for his property, hoping to profit from some of the traffic I drew in, but value of his land (along with land anywhere in close proximity) is now assessed as being of comparable value to the land my casino is on.  That represents a cost of ownership increase that has literally priced the skating rink owner, and a few of my non-casino-owning neighbors, off of their land.  The skating rink uses the same amount of land as I do, but will never, ever enjoy the same *land-to-economic-activity ratio* that I enjoy.  His land might be "efficiently used", but only for that specific purpose, and only from his point of view -- not the state's, and not those chomping at the bit for the opportunity to set up shop next to a casino. 
> 
> Result: Bye-bye skating rink.


That is the same as today with the crazy system we have now. I see no skating rinks in central Manhattan with one floor buildings on the land. Businesses who can't make it sell up their highly valuable land or others offer them a high price for their land to make better economic use of it. The price they are offered is worth wrapping up the ice rink business.  


LVT Is based on an unrigged free-market.Markets may be fluid.Most make in that market, some may fail.LVT does NOT change business behavior.LVT is not a welfare system propping up people and businesses to stay in one location.LVT does not ensure a market stays static.LVT is not a system that bestows privilege on any landowners.LVT clearly promotes enterprise - look at Taiwan.LVT does not artificially induce Concentrated Cost of Ownership Zones. The FREE-MARKET does that. LVT reacts to the free-market.  The free-market determines the land values not LVT.  LVT follows the market. 


A quote from Roy:
The maximum amount of LVT is simply the market rent: the same amount the high bidder would voluntarily pay to use the land. It is therefore always affordable to the right user. _It just might not be affordable to the current user, if they are not using it as productively as someone else would._

LVT encourages productive use of land. 




> In other words, LVT is special privilege tax,


With LVT being exactly the opposite, the above proves your analytical skills are zero.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The blind LVT macro-assumption is that all economic activity is "_good for the community_", and therefore automatically good for everyone therein.


99% of people would say no economic activity at all is bad. 




> regardless of whether there really was any "increased economic benefit" to that particular landowner.


Once again ....*LVT reclaims wealth created by the surrounding community*, nothing else. A landowner did not create that wealth.  The community reclaims its wealth. That is simple to understand. No one is stripping anything from the landowner. What he earned he keeps 100%.  He is just not appropriating common wealth - a form of stealing from the community. That is simple to understand. *He keeps 100% of what he earned and prevented from stealing wealth from the community.*

----------


## Roy L

> I ran some numbers as to what an LVT would cost in another thread.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Hood-Tax/page3


Numbers that were of course wildly wrong.



> I assumed the US budget was the same size it is now and you paid for all of it via LVT.  If you tax only cities, it came to over $63,000 an acre- about 50% higher than the median income.   If you include all farmlands and grazing lands, it drops down to about $3500 an acre per year- but that is also about 1.5 times the current average value per acre of that land too (just over $2000 an acre).  That will discurage people from having farms (say goodbye to your food production or food prices would soar by multiples so the farmers could afford to pay the taxes (the taxes are due every year, the purchase price of the land is one- time)- so much for not being able to pass along the tax to consumers- or they will simply go out of business and everybody starve to death) or if you exclude the farm and rangeland, nobody can afford to live in the cities.  This is our economic nirvana brought to us via the LVT?


L*V*T.  Not L*A*T.  So simple.  But so hard for some people to comprehend...

The *maximum* amount of LVT is simply the market rent: the same amount the high bidder would *voluntarily* pay to use the land.  It is therefore always affordable to the right user.  It just might not be affordable to the _current_ user, if they are not using it as productively as someone else would.



> For comparison's sake, the highest state property tax average is less than three percent.


It's actually less than 2%.



> The tax on farmland would be over 150%.


That's actually not a meaningful way of thinking about it, even if it were accurate, which it isn't, because the tax would cause the value of land to decline effectively to zero, at which point the notional ad valorem tax rate would be infinite.  Which is of course meaningless, too.  LVT can't exceed the market land rent because the land value (and thus the tax) would become negative.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> EcoWarrier[sic]



*Warrier* 
They are considered higher than the royal family castewise and are second-highest in caste-rankings.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> *Warrier* 
> They are considered higher than the royal family castewise and are second-highest in caste-rankings.


I didn't realize you were a kind of royalty. My bad, your second highest highness. I guess that makes sic the only word that was misspelled.

----------


## Roy L

> So the Georgists would have a monopoly government


Non-monopoly government is called, "civil war."



> set the tax rate on lands


Land rent is set by the market, not government.  There is a difference between "setting" a quantity and _measuring_ it.



> and in turn redistribute that collection to the community?


No, provide the desirable services and infrastructure people are willing to pay land rent for access to.  That is how LVT aligns the government's financial interest with the public interest.



> And tax it a 100% to boot?


Any publicly created land rent not recovered for public purposes and benefit is a welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner.



> How is this not complete communization of land?


The use and rent would be set by the market, and the land would be managed and exclusively occupied by the private landholder.



> Rothbard pulls your thread with this statement...
> 
> "...Thus, pure site value could never be found in practice, and the single tax program could not be installed except by arbitrary authority."


Rothbard made a prize fool of himself when he tried to refute geoist arguments, and the above is a good example.  People find pure site rent in practice all the time: it's what they pay for use of land.



> Arbitrary authority making impossible tax calculations of land used or unused is simply re-inventing the state.


Funny how those "impossible" calculations were made quite successfully even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read...

Reinventing the state to be better than the kind of state we have sounds like a good idea to me.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I didn't realize you were a kind of royalty. My bad, your second highest highness. I guess that makes sic the only word that was misspelled.


Warrier is not misspelled - Indian.  Now you know.  Eco at the highest levels.

----------


## awake

> Non-monopoly government is called, "civil war."
> 
> Land rent is set by the market, not government.  There is a difference between "setting" a quantity and _measuring_ it.
> 
> No, provide the desirable services and infrastructure people are willing to pay land rent for access to.  That is how LVT aligns the government's financial interest with the public interest.
> 
> Any publicly created land rent not recovered for public purposes and benefit is a welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner.
> 
> The use and rent would be set by the market, and the land would be managed and exclusively occupied by the private landholder.
> ...



What if no one wanted any service from your better state? Your whole argument is semantics: using gutted and Orwellian versions of words to describe state confiscation and state abuse of its arbitrary authority. None of your " set by the market" appraisal would be market at all...An army of state assessors would have to try and define land values (impossible) because the owner and seller could not be trusted to assess it properly.

Any amount a land owner could profit over the assessment would be a "give away" as you say, and subject to confiscation to a bureaucracy(community)...Any transaction under  the assessment would be ripping off the state which would have to be illigal...Some definition of liberty you have there. It is a complete nationalization of all land under the state and complete tyranny.

The barrage of spam rebuttals, most of which are name calling and denials, reminds me of the desperation the socialists had when Mises devastated the idea of socialism. One after another tried to throw themselves on the grenade that Mises dropped on them, and each and everyone could not invalidate Mises' critique. 

Rothbard was a fool...???? Really? This is just intellectual dishonesty.

You admit the reorganization of a more just state is the outcome of your arrangement. I say any attempt to reform the state is antithesis in the goal of human liberty.

----------


## Len Larson

> I didn't realize you were a kind of royalty. My bad, your second highest highness. I guess that makes sic the only word that was misspelled.


Finally, the other shoe dropped. Thanks for quoting that Steven. I would have missed that as EcoWarrier[sick  ] is on my ignore list.

So, are there *any* LVTrolls that don't consider themselves to be royalty? 
Typical collectivist, everyone is equal, but they are just a little more equal.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> * LVT, GROUND RENTS & STATE CAPTURE RATIONALE* (and why a casino owner specifically should favor such a "single tax")


Actually, you're close to right here.  Productive people generally should favor the LVT.  In fact, if you consider any productive entrepreneur in place of your casino owner in the diatribe below, it works equally well.

*Productive people are beneficiaries of a shift to LVT, in proportion to their productivity.  Society as a whole benefits when there's a stronger incentive for individuals to be more productive.*




> Let's say that I am a visionary who builds a casino in the middle of a desert and promotes it. Eventually it takes on an economic gravity of its own, as more and more people come to take advantage of all the opportunities and amenities *induced by the casino*.  Over time a primarily entertainment and gambling based economy blossoms in the middle of the desert. 
> 
> As a casino owner, I now have a small problem. I (along with each customer by extension), am now subject to a wide range of taxes.  All all those taxes -- gambling, property, sales, capital gains, etc., could go completely away under LVT, as they are "shifted" to a Land Value Tax.  That seems like A Very Good Thing. For me *specifically*, at least.


So far you're doing decently, but even under a LVT scheme, they're likely be a gambling tax.  At least as long as gambling was generally illegal as it now is, anyways.  




> As a profit-maximizing Casino owner, I should LOVE LVT (assuming it really was a single tax), given that it is particularly suited to favor my type of business. The ONLY reason I would favor it over other taxes is the same reason any financial services firm should love it: because *my ratio of economic activity to land is much, MUCH higher than literally anyone else's*. By nature.  And the higher I stack that financial activity, the greater my profits.  Of course, that also increases the land value of mine and surrounding lands, but that's incidental, to me at least, as it is my economic activity specifically that is causing that increase. 
> 
> As a casino owner, I am fully aware that people are coming to take advantage of the privately owned, non-shared, non-public, for-profit *capital investment* on my privately owned land.  I am not so blind or daft as to think for a moment that people are flocking to be in (or near) my casino because they heard about all the wonderful "community infrastructure" and "community created wealth".  I know that's complete and utter bull$#@!.  The common infrastructure that I share with everyone is a necessary, but wholly incidental part of a very small cost that is shared in common with others, with no profit-taking on anyone's part for it.


Actually, it's not.  As you are obviously referencing Las Vegas, it's worth noting that a massive investment in government infrastructure enabled Las Vegas: Hoover Dam.




> Likewise, the other private entities that show up to take advantage of opportunities bring opportunities of their own: so the more the merrier, because that's Division of Labor at work, and everybody wins, as a desert that once offered nothing but hard, dry dust, was seeded with a casino, and now sports a burgeoning Oasis -- Something For Everybody.   
> 
> *ENTER LVT AND ITS ENHANCED GRAVITY EFFECT*


AKA: enhanced productivity effect.




> Eventually LVT is imposed, forget the details, as a tax on the basis of 100% annual land rents only.  Magically, there is no other tax, as they have all been shifted to LVT as a single tax. That is an enormous windfall for me in particular, because while my land is valued relatively high, it is only due my *ratio of economic activity to required land*. 
> 
> The owner of the new skating rink next door did not fare so well.  He paid/owes a lot for his property, hoping to profit from some of the traffic I drew in, but value of his land (along with land anywhere in close proximity) is now assessed as being of comparable value to the land my casino is on.  That represents a cost of ownership increase that has literally priced the skating rink owner, and a few of my non-casino-owning neighbors, off of their land.  The skating rink uses the same amount of land as I do, but will never, ever enjoy the same *land-to-economic-activity ratio* that I enjoy.  His land might be "efficiently used", but only for that specific purpose, and only from his point of view -- not the state's, and not those chomping at the bit for the opportunity to set up shop next to a casino.


It's not efficient from society's point of view.  He's just squandering a massive opportunity: an opportunity for prospective entrepreneurs, an opportunity for society to benefit from some crazy-ass new casino/resort, an opportunity for the state to collect revenue to improve infrastructure and services.




> Result: Bye-bye skating rink. And bye-bye anyone else who must now keep up financially with neighbors in the artificially induced *Concentrated Cost of Ownership Zone*.


But this happens anyways, Steven.  The main difference between LVT and no LVT is is land is allocated quicker and more effectively under the LVT.  Without LVT, your rink-owner might remain a while, but inevitably, he'd sell out.  In all likelihood, he'd hold out for as long as he could, awaiting increases in land value.  Eventaully, he'd sell out, and his rink would be demolished and replaced with a casino.  Aside from the fact that a site for a casino would needlessly be squandered over that period, the other big difference would that the ice rink owner would get a massive pile of cash for nothing: due to no work whatsoever on his part, he'd be wildly rich.  The casino owners in his vicinity and the government and all the workers at the casinos and consumers from all over the world are what made his land so valuable, yet he'd get to pocket the cash.  Without LVT, the cash goes into his pockets, so the government is forced instead to *tax producers in proportion to how productive they are*.  Which is obviously and inarguably stupid.




> Those who cannot keep pace must move away from the casino to cheaper land, and all because they cannot pull in enough economic activity (PER SQ. FT) to support the same Land Value Tax rates _that my casino caused in the first place_, based on the nature of my going concern, and its ability to draw in the largest paying crowd.


Right: a meritocracy.  Society demands certain amenities, and only those producers capable of supplying them get to remain on the land.  Land is thus allocated efficiently, saving society as a whole a ton of labor and resources.




> So I am happy, because LVT encourages and rewards those with the least dependency on land, along with the densest concentration of financial activity, while shifting the bulk of the tax burden onto those with the greatest dependency on population and land, but without a high ratio of income to land required for use.


The LVT rewards the productive.  That's a good thing, Steven.




> In other words, LVT is special privilege tax, as it is particularly well suited to special types of industries and firms.


No, that's false.




> Well, its proponents would argue simply that it is "more efficient land use".  What do I care? Yay for me and other casinos, and hooray especially for banks, brokers, insurance companies, developers, and any rent-seeking firm with a *high financial activity to land use ratio*. They are the clear winners, all of whom are seen as "more efficient" by the aggregate-only thinking geonomists under the new LVT regime.


Everyone benefits from efficiency, Steven.  Efficiency means more goods and services for the same input of labor and resources.  That's the whole meaning of economization. 




> Oh, and what about actual residences near the casino?  Hehehe...they're the biggest losers of all, because they aren't even firms.  Nothing "productive" about homes in the macroeconomic sense. Not unless you're a home developer or lender.


Well, houses are required to supply businesses with employees.  Or maybe not necessarily houses, but dwellings (ie, apartments, houses, condos).  The casinos could never grow if it were too inconvenient for employees to work there.




> Houses are not geared competitively for high LVT either.  As as casino owner, however, I think I'll do just fine with my house.  Time for some expensive improvements on my house -- make the nearby land more desirable so that I can get those land values up.  As a bonus, I'll have geoists arguing that none of my improvements - not the casino or the house, have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do the value of the underlying land.  Talk about useful idiots as economic allies! I'm not that stupid. Thanks to LVT, I now have a mechanism for clearing out all the "less productive" :::sngt!:::  riff-raff from my neighborhood.


There's no LVT now, and there's no houses on the strip in Las Vegas.  Even with our current inefficiencies due to lack of LVT, our land market isn't so wildly inefficient as to make casinos and houses neighbors.




> *LVT - THE RADIAL PERIMETER BURNER EFFECT*
> 
> So take the case of a landowner who is simply content to exist, serve, and live a quality life, and who is not prone to, or needing, artificially induced economic growth for the sake of growth alone; someone who does not require heavy local traffic, or whose business is not inherently geared for a *high financial-activity-to-land ratio* (as not all are equal by nature in that regard).  Under an LVT regime, the very worst thing that can happen to that landowner is for a big fat Disney, or a casino, or anything else that draws a big paying crowd _into itself_, to plop its ass down and buy up land anywhere nearby. The cost of ownership is about to heat up, despite the fact that not all businesses or industries are geared the same way (nor need they be under normal circumstances). The blind LVT macro-assumption is that all economic activity is "_good for the community_", and therefore automatically good for everyone therein. The _economic wealth-siphoning heat_ from a Big Behemoth is what "soaks into the ground". That is what radiates outward, as land values rise (along LVT as a cost of ownership), regardless of specific land use, and regardless of whether there really was any "increased economic benefit" to that particular landowner.


Steven, under any scheme, bad things can happen to individuals. No matter how a government taxes, there will be results which are unpleasant to some.  But if the tax acts to increase economic productivity, even those who may be inconvenienced will still benefit from a society that is wealthier, and has more opportunities.  No one wants to move, but moving is hardly the end of the world.  Consider the dead-weight burden businessmen have to deal with under income and property taxation.  Many businessmen who'd be in business under the LVT aren't even in business now, because their tax burden makes them sub-marginal.




> LVT proponents have their own spin on all of this, of course, as well as, I am sure, disagreement with what I've written or how I've characterized it. It doesn't matter. It is obvious to me why LVT has always been an easy smack down, which has nothing to do with Roy's characterizations of opponents as evil, murdering apologists for landowner privilege.


No, Roy is exactly right.  As your rink owner enjoys the piles of cash his land enable him to receive without doing any work, a casino that could have employed hundreds isn't built.  So landowners can get money for nothing, others have to be robbed.

----------


## Len Larson

> [Bunch of LVTroll rationalizations] ... others have to be robbed.


What a perfect mission statement for LVT govt.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> What a perfect mission statement for LVT govt.


What a worth-while post.  Evidently, you can't actually find anything wrong with what I wrote.  Maybe it'd be preferable to actually read up on the LVT.  Once upon a time, I stopped arguing and read up on the LVT, so I could determine the fundamental flaw in the argument once and for all.  

Here I am today.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> More accurately, microeconomics is applied TO ALL specific situations, whereas macroeconomics is applied only to those deemed Big Enough To Manipulate, and Too Big To Fail.


No, that isn't more accurate at all.  Microeconomics is like a study of a tree, whereas macroeconomics is like the study of a forest.




> Interesting choice of words. What does that mean, "do economics"?  Economics is supposedly descriptive, predictive, and informative. Not normative.  When you say "do economics" you are going outside of the merely informative, using your theories and interpretations to support the normatives you advocate; shoulds, oughts -- major policy decisions. Actual central planning and macro-engineering.  (BTW, EcoWarrier[sic] thinks I'm saying "Norman" - just humor him).


No, false.  when I say "do economics" I simply mean understanding how the economy as a whole works.




> I didn't know there was a single collectivized, homogeneous blob called "economics" to ditch. That's like Roy thinking that because "weeza hatesa [HIS ICKY-ASS VERSION of] gubmint" that automatically means that we are against government in general.  That's arrogant, presumptuous and non-self-aware.  Did you consider that it is possible that I am ditching only what I consider BAD economics, Matt -- incorrect theories, baseless assumptions, and all the misapplied policies based thereon?


But that's not what you're doing.  It'd be one thing to say you disagree with Keynsianism, or Marxism, or Georgism, or Monetarism; what you're doing is ditching entirely the very foundation of all schools of economics.

And you know what?  That, in and of itself, actually isn't unforgivable.  Perhaps all of economics has it wrong.  Fair enough.  But the problem is that you fail to offer any reasoned alternative.  The truth is just that you don't like the facts that economics make clear.




> How ironic that you should invoke Adam Smith. I know geolibs love quoting Smith because of his position on the Land Value Tax.


It's just a very basic position; it was established with the first major economist of wide renown, and hasn't been disputed since.




> However, just as Keynes is considered to be the father of modern the macroeconomics you rely on in support of the tax, Adam Smith is widely considered to be the father of the microeconomics that you don't personally find necessary, relevant or applicable to tax policy.


I'd love for you to expand on what point you think you're making here.  Let me know when you do, so I can pop some popcorn.




> And it's no wonder, as microeconomics attempts to describe granular reality at all scales, as it is the study of how people interact and how markets actually work. Macroeconomics (the Keynesian-spawned statists' whore, IMO) only concerns itself with how governments can manipulate people and markets.


This is nothing more than a massive misunderstanding of what macroeconomics and microeconomics is.




> Let's finally clear some more macroeconomics apples to microeconomics oranges once and for all. Not for you, but for others reading:
> 
> The definition of supply I use comes from microeconomics, and is absolutely 100% accurate in that context (as cited and sourced in previous posts) - AKA reality, at the only level that is truly important _in my mind_; the individual -- _each and every one_ -- not jointly, collectively, or averaged in any way.  The definition of supply you are using comes from macroeconomics, and is 100% accurate, but ONLY in that context, where ONLY THE WHOLE is considered -- "the economy", as individuals are blurred, or averaged out into virtual nonexistence, or irrelevance, in deference "to the whole" - which is the only thing that matters to collectivist statists and others such as yourself.


Sigh.  It's about context, Steven.  From my point of view, if you punch me in the face, and take my wallet, you're that much richer, and I'm that much poorer.  From the context of society, nothing has been lost or gained: on person's wealth was transferred to another by force, but wealth in the aggregate has not changed.

The macroeconomic perspective is the correct one for analyzing tax policy, because it allows us to determine whether society as a whole will be better off, or worse off due to the imposition of the tax.  It also allows us to determine who will be worse of and why.  Microeconomics just isn't relevant.  If you hadn't already lost all respect in my mind, I'd feel embarrassed for you, because your misuses of 'macroeconomics' and 'microeconomics' is so woefully wrong.

For example: from the microeconomic perspective of a thief, it is good policy to eliminate rules against thievery; thieves would be much better off without the cumbersome punishments currently associated with theft.  But what of society as a whole?  You need to consider how theft affects society.  We know that a society where theft is prevalent will tend to produce less wealth, so even as thieves are proportionally worse off with our anti-theft laws, society is generally much better off, even to the point of making would-be thieves better off.  Ideally, we'd try to design rules such that there'd be no inducement to thievery, as productive behavior would be the easier path.  That's what the LVT does: it removes the incentive to be an unproductive parasite, and rewards productivity.




> Here's a treatment on the law of supply in one context from one textbook that actually distinguishes the macro from the micro, at least at the level of industrial use of land:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Supply of Land: 
> 
> Supply of land, from the point of view of an economy, is perfectly inelastic. It means the total supply of land in an economy cannot be increased. Supply of land is free for an economy, as it has no cost of production. 
> ...


That's just false.  The whole bone of contention here -the whole reason there's any dispute whatever- is over whether landowners bear the burden of the tax.  The macroeconomic perspective is simply the relevant perspective: there is a fixed amount of land available to the economy, and thus demand determines prices.  Because imposition of the LVT neither decreases supply, nor increases demand, the LVT can not be passed on to tenants.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> No, that isn't more accurate at all.  Microeconomics is like a study of a tree, whereas macroeconomics is like the study of a forest.


Wrong. In the absolute.  Microeconomics is like the study of "trees" (aka buyers/sellers/industries) and how the interact.  It is not "like a study of a tree".   Macroeconomics sees only forest - no trees, except as described as a forest. 




> It'd be one thing to say you disagree with Keynsianism, or Marxism, or Georgism, or Monetarism; what you're doing is ditching entirely the very foundation of all schools of economics.


I disagree with Keynsianism, Marxism, Georgism, and Monetarism, none of which are the very foundation of all schools of economics.  

And...ahem...you ditched forgot one. (hint - Where the $#@! are you at this moment, Waldo?) 




> But the problem is that you fail to offer any reasoned alternative.


I did. Many times. You just haven't been paying attention:  

Tax entities (anything at all, including LVT) that exist and behave in our economy as a matter of conditional privileged legal status only. That's foreigners, corporations and collectives, foreign and domestic, and anything other than individual, free and natural Citizens, to the extent that they exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right.  Those people themselves are free. In all respects.  It's that simple.  What is commonly owned is NOT $#@!ING RENTED BACK TO THE COMMON OWNERS. There are more than plenty enough _entities-without-unalienable-rights_ to foot ALL the bills.  And they would be more than happy to foot them, for the privilege of taking part in an economy where they are NEVER ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL RIGHTS.  

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  Under LVT, all those entities, many of which already have natural economic advantages, are given an artificial boost to those advantages by LVT - IF they are applied equally to all.  $#@! that.  Walmart and NON-INCORPORATED Joe Citizen of Joe's Teensy-Tiny Private General Store were NOT $#@!ING CREATED EQUAL.  It is my position (AND PANACEA SOLUTION) that Joe is THE ONLY ENTITY, between those two, that exists and behaves as a matter of *absolute, untrammeled, nontaxable, unalienable right.*

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Wrong. In the absolute.  Microeconomics is like the study of "trees" (aka buyers/sellers/industries) and how the interact.  It is not "like a study of a tree".   Macroeconomics sees only forest - no trees, except as described as a forest.


Nope. 




> I disagree with Keynsianism, Marxism, Georgism, and Monetarism, none of which are the very foundation of all schools of economics.  
> 
> And...ahem...you ditched forgot one. (hint - Where the $#@! are you at this moment, Waldo?)


Add whatever school you like.  




> I did. Many times.


False.




> You just haven't been paying attention:  
> 
> Tax entities (anything at all, including LVT) that exist and behave in our economy as a matter of conditional privileged legal status only. That's foreigners, corporations and collectives, foreign and domestic, and anything other than individual, free and natural Citizens, to the extent that they exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right.  Those people themselves are free. In all respects.  It's that simple.  What is commonly owned is NOT $#@!ING RENTED BACK TO THE COMMON OWNERS. There are more than plenty enough _entities-without-unalienable-rights_ to foot ALL the bills.  And they would be more than happy to foot them, for the privilege of taking part in an economy where they are NEVER ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL RIGHTS.


This is meaningless in general, but is utterly and absolutely meaningless as a basis of economic theory.




> That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  Under LVT, all those entities, many of which already have natural economic advantages, are given an artificial boost to those advantages by LVT - IF they are applied equally to all.  $#@! that.  Walmart and NON-INCORPORATED Joe Citizen of Joe's Teensy-Tiny Private General Store were NOT $#@!ING CREATED EQUAL.  It is my position (AND PANACEA SOLUTION) that Joe is THE ONLY ENTITY, between those two, that exists and behaves as a matter of *absolute, untrammeled, nontaxable, unalienable right.*


But that is, of course, meaningless, because it's dependent on who Joe is.  You've literally said nothing.  It's just a bunch of meaningless words.  That's the problem with refusing to know things.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Nope.


Unresponsive.




> Add whatever school you like.


Austrian.  




> False.


Unresponsive.




> This is meaningless in general, but is utterly and absolutely meaningless as a basis of economic theory.


It's not the basis for an economics theory, nor was it intended to be, any more than the Constitution was.  Don't you see how you have your economic carts, policy horses and people riders all mixed up? The reason you missed it is that you, like Marx, George, Keynes and so many Keynesian-rooted geoists, conflate policy and economic theory, in the hopes of borrowing pseudo-scientific prestige, so that an economics theory can serve as the driving engine and chief rationale for whatever STATIST POLICY it is that you ADVOCATE. 

Economics theories are supposed to be scientific (or at least they pretend to be) : descriptive, informative, as they attempt to be predictive.  _Not prescriptive._  Thus, it should not matter what policy is in place. Any economics theory should be able to see a policy as just so much information.  Then, as that policy is implemented, you _might_ be able to test just how accurate or reliable each economics theory was in being able to describe or predict -- NEVER PRESCRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE - its effects on  *all economies* within "the [*highly heterogeneous*] economy". 

My position is that rights should NEVER be derived (let alone eroded or abridged) on the basis of *any* economics theory.  That's not ditching any of them. It's putting all of them in their proper place, because not doing that is what got us this deep into the truly $#@!ed up Keynesian nightmare we're living in now, as economics theories were elevated in status above fundamental principles, and even individual rights, as they suggest solutions to problems described that may not even exist -- or more importantly, that may not actually be problems in search of *statist solutions*.  Sticky wages as people refuse to take pay cuts in a growing economy, oh my! Liquidity traps, deflation and inelasticity of "the money supply", oh my! And people "hoarding" [their own] money? --- OH MY! --- what could be worse than that? Why, "the economy" would shut down and this would be catastrophic! These all require solutions. We can't have regular individuals with that kind of leverage and control.  Solution: Gee, a privately owned, privately controlled, politically unaccountable central banking control system with a monopoly on counterfeiting and central interest rate setting power might be just the ticket! It might actually solve "the problems" that our theories clearly show are facing "the economy"!  

For economy meddlers and other statist distortionists, economic policy is always a "economy-wide" cost-benefits issue for "society", with actual rights and privileges for real individuals determined primarily by a bunch of theoretical fools and ideologues operating in vacuums with nothing but sociopathic regard for individuals or core principles.  Really, Matt, they should be manning wood chippers, but I'm afraid there aren't enough. 




> But that is, of course, meaningless, because it's dependent on who Joe is.  You've literally said nothing.  It's just a bunch of meaningless words.  That's the problem with refusing to know things.


Yeah, that is the problem with refusing to know things, Matt. I said _exactly_ who Joe is, and your mind, which filters and blurs individuals into nonexistence and irrelevance, drew a complete blank. 

*Joe is a Free and Natural Citizen;*  a real human being and living Citizen. *There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about that.*   That is his legal status - pretty black and white, really.  That means he is not a foreigner, a collective, a partnership, a corporation, or anything else. Unlike EcoWarrier(sic), he is THE HIGHEST ranking caste member in his own society -- equal to all others of that same legal status.  All other entities - ANY ONE OR ANY THING  - that is not like *exactly* like Joe (not a living free and a natural Citizen) would be subject to taxes, regulations, and all manner of conditional behavior and existence within our economy, as a matter of their conditionally privileged, fully alienable legal status.  Joe, on the other hand, and everyone just like Joe (ALL free and natural Citizen individuals) would be FREE.  Forever.

----------


## Len Larson

Now that we've established the royal predilections of the LVTrolls, this would be a good time to re-examine the feudal characteristics of LVT.

"Society" or the "Community" takes the role of God. 
LVTrolls please provide an unambiguous definition of "Community" that is NOT simply reducible to "God".

Somehow, the LVT govt. captures the God-Community and assumes for itself the role of God-Community's representative here on Earth. 
LVTrolls please explain the justification for this.

Furthermore, if you're not a member of the Eco-Clergy, an LVT Tax Assesor Lord, or a member of the LVT royal court, then you are forever damned to a serf's life.
LVTrolls please explain how this could ever lead to Liberty for everyone.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Now that we've established the royal predilections of the LVTrolls, this would be a good time to re-examine the feudal characteristics of LVT.


The LVT is as anti-feudal as it gets.




> "Society" or the "Community" takes the role of God. 
> LVTrolls please provide an unambiguous definition of "Community" that is NOT simply reducible to "God".


No definition of community is reducible to god.




> Somehow, the LVT govt. captures the God-Community and assumes for itself the role of God-Community's representative here on Earth. 
> LVTrolls please explain the justification for this.


I have no idea what you're trying to do by tying the word god to community, but the justification for the LVT is that *each individual* has an equal right to use land; as individuals have formed societies which are based on fixed improvements, there needs to be a way to secure the creators of said improvemnents of their property, while at the same time reconciling each individual's equal right to use land.




> Furthermore, if you're not a member of the Eco-Clergy, an LVT Tax Assesor Lord, or a member of the LVT royal court, then you are forever damned to a serf's life.
> LVTrolls please explain how this could ever lead to Liberty for everyone.


There's simply nothing here to address, because you've simply made a nonsensical assertion.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...the justification for the LVT is that *each individual* has an equal right to use land


When you drill down further, and actually give this some critical thought, you find that the real premise of the justification for LVT is the claim that [each individual] has an equal right to _non-exclusive_ (SHARED - common - _communistic_) use of land. And when you dig just a little further, you find that "to use land" means _any land_, including that which is already in exclusively use by others -- for any purpose whatsoever.  

*THE GEOCOMMUNIST CATCH-22* 

Since it physically impossible _for anyone on Earth_ to survive and exist without the exclusive use of some minimum fixed area of land, this "equal right to use land" that is advocated as a right by LVT proponents *cannot be exercised* without automatically resulting in a violation of everyone else's "individual right to use [THAT] land".  This poses A Grave Problem, not to mention a Catch-22 for everyone on Earth, who is automatically guilty of rights violations based on their existence anywhere in or near a community of any kind.  

It is physically impossible *to secure the actual physical rights-to-use* (again, of THAT land that is in use exclusively by someone else).  That is the setup for the Catch-22, as it means that it is also logically impossible but that billions of rights violations MUST occur daily (as a result of people simply existing and surviving on the Earth). But never fear, as those clever ecommunists known as "geonomists" have come up with a Wonderful Statist Solution to their *physically irreconcilable* fantasy problem.  Because inasmuch as you are automatically a violator of everyone else's rights, guess what? Everyone else is also a violator of yours!  We just need to find out to what extent each person is a violator, and balance the books and settle up accordingly.

_The Geoist Solution_ to _The Geoist Problem_ is strictly monetary. It is analogous to a class action lawsuit _against every landowner_, who is sued perpetually for monetary damages.  The principle justification for LVT dictates that whomever uses land exclusively is automatically presumed to have "willingly" entered a guilty plea in that class action suit, and will thus "agree" to incur a Land Use Liberty Rights Deprivation Penalty as a result of using land exclusively violating everyone else's rights. Payment of this penalty to the state is then deemed Just Compensation, as it is owed to everyone else for their _equal-rights-to-use-land_ deprivation. This penalty will be in direct proportion to a) the quantity of land that is in use, multiplied by b) how much that particular land is desired for use by others (the assessed value of the annual land rents).  

Nifty, huh? Once everyone who uses land is presumed guilty, the only question that remains is who is the most guilty, as we all settle up (with the state, of course, which every good statist collectivist knows is roughly synonymous and interchangeable with "the people").

The Really Neat Trick: Those who don't rely on land, or any kind of close proximity to a major population center, can nevertheless use all of the infrastructure therein, engage in economic activity therein, and otherwise acquire as much wealth as they desire from it, without paying a penny for the commonly shared government services and infrastructure that made that all possible.  Don't worry, though. *The locals, and only the locals, will foot the entire bill.* This is because it is assumed by those clever geoists that landowners are the only ones deriving economic benefits from the community, based on their exclusive landownership alone.  

Farmers, miners, individual residents and other landowners are considered a captive (but willing, doncha know) paying audience. They all "freely chose" to foot *the entire bill* for all government services the moment they agreed to rent something from what was arrogated en masse into the state's Land Rental Store. As such, only the locals pay for the economic benefits and opportunities, which gives a decided edge to foreigners, strangers, and the relatively landless parties who have it absolutely made, as they may now engage freely, and enjoy all those benefits, completely free of charge. To the extent that they keep themselves relatively landless, competition with all but the most capital improvement rich rent-seeking landowners is like shooting fish in a barrel.

----------


## Roy L

> Finally, the other shoe dropped. Thanks for quoting that Steven. I would have missed that as EcoWarrier[sick  ] is on my ignore list.
> 
> So, are there *any* LVTrolls that don't consider themselves to be royalty? 
> Typical collectivist, everyone is equal, but they are just a little more equal.


So you've spewed some stupid, dishonest filth.  How special for you.

----------


## Roy L

> What if no one wanted any service from your better state?


What if no one went to work tomorrow?  That makes about as much sense.



> Your whole argument is semantics: using gutted and Orwellian versions of words to describe state confiscation and state abuse of its arbitrary authority.


No, that's nothing but an absurd fabrication on your part.



> None of your " set by the market" appraisal would be market at all...


Inevitably, you have to resort to the most fundamentally irrational of all "arguments": A is not-A.



> An army of state assessors would have to try and define land values (impossible)


Yet it was done even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read.



> because the owner and seller could not be trusted to assess it properly.


The market will value land accurately.  It's just a matter of observing it.



> Any amount a land owner could profit over the assessment would be a "give away" as you say, and subject to confiscation to a bureaucracy(community)...Any transaction under  the assessment would be ripping off the state which would have to be illigal...


These claims are just meaningless howling devoid of any relationship to LVT.



> Some definition of liberty you have there. It is a complete nationalization of all land under the state and complete tyranny.


Hong Kong has "complete nationalization of all land under the state," and has for 160 years.  Yet far from being "complete tyranny," it routinely tops lists of the freest countries in the world.

Your belief system considers that impossible.  Mine knows that it is inevitable.  The facts therefore prove that your belief system is objectively false, and mine is objectively true.



> The barrage of spam rebuttals, most of which are name calling and denials,


That is an outright fabrication on your part.  I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications.



> reminds me of the desperation the socialists had when Mises devastated the idea of socialism. One after another tried to throw themselves on the grenade that Mises dropped on them, and each and everyone could not invalidate Mises' critique.


I have demolished all "critiques" of LVT as the fallacious, absurd, and dishonest garbage they are.



> Rothbard was a fool...???? Really? This is just intellectual dishonesty.


I stated that he had made a fool of himself in his critique of Georgism (which is certainly true), not that he was a fool.  The intellectual dishonesty is therefore entirely yours.  That will continue to be the case as long as you presume to dispute with me.



> You admit the reorganization of a more just state is the outcome of your arrangement. I say any attempt to reform the state is antithesis in the goal of human liberty.


So you are happy with the state as it is, and find that it maximizes human liberty?

Of course, that is a rhetorical question.  You know that you were just spewing stupid, dishonest garbage.

It's always the same.

----------


## Roy L

> Now that we've established the royal predilections of the LVTrolls,


On the basis of... spelling...?  Riiiiight.



> this would be a good time to re-examine the feudal characteristics of LVT.


This is a good example of the absurd fabrications typical of anti-LVT shrieking.



> "Society" or the "Community" takes the role of God.


Bald fabrication.  



> LVTrolls please provide an unambiguous definition of "Community" that is NOT simply reducible to "God".


A community is a group of people living and dealing with each other who recognize each other as fellow members of that community.



> Somehow, the LVT govt. captures the God-Community and assumes for itself the role of God-Community's representative here on Earth.


This is probably best understood as an example of the mindless gibbering that normally follows a breakdown of rational thought in self-contradiction.



> LVTrolls please explain the justification for this.


For what?  Garbage you fabricated?



> Furthermore, if you're not a member of the Eco-Clergy, an LVT Tax Assesor Lord, or a member of the LVT royal court, then you are forever damned to a serf's life.


Speaking of being "forever damned to a serf's life," see the condition of the landless in every country where private landowning is well established, but the government does not intercede massively on behalf of the landless to rescue them from the effects of landowner privilege.



> LVTrolls please explain how this could ever lead to Liberty for everyone.


When you are at liberty to use what nature provided to sustain and enhance your life, you are free.  When you are not, you are not.  It's not rocket science.

----------


## Roy L

> No, you just quote him a lot,


That is a fabrication on your part.  I rarely quote him, though I do fairly often quote a letter (not by him) that appeared in one of his books.



> tout his theorem as if it was the eighth wonder of the economic world,


The theorem was named in his honor, it was not his discovery.



> and add in your own fifty cents as a Roy L remix.


Which is worth about fifty cents more than what you add...



> It's that kind of semantic hair-splitting and definition-torturing that makes you so entertaining to me, Roy.


It is not hairsplitting or definition-torturing, but simply correction of a deliberate misuse of ordinary English.



> Ergo, in Roy's lexicon, "ownership" is of property,


As in every honest lexicon.



> and property cannot be considered property without the ability to "transfer" said ownership.


Correct.  Property consists of a bundle of rights.  If any of them are missing, it's not property but something else.



> He cannot transfer "himself" (whatever that means to Roy, which is not clear or defined),


My guess: it means, "himself."



> so we'll invoke a "non-ownership" term called "belonging", or "self-belonging".


That was the term George used.  It seems clear and accurate enough to me.



> You have your own lexicon of LVT Political Correctness, Roy.


I'm using ordinary words in ordinary senses.  They are merely words that can be used to identify facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil, so you have to find some way of not knowing them.  Refusing to understand clear, correct, grammatical English words is one way of preventing yourself from knowing such facts.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Austrian.


Sigh.  I mean that rhetorically: it doesn't matter.




> It's not the basis for an economics theory, nor was it intended to be, any more than the Constitution was.  Don't you see how you have your economic carts, policy horses and people riders all mixed up? The reason you missed it is that you, like Marx, George, Keynes and so many Keynesian-rooted geoists, conflate policy and economic theory, in the hopes of borrowing pseudo-scientific prestige, so that an economics theory can serve as the driving engine and chief rationale for whatever STATIST POLICY it is that you ADVOCATE.


As opposed to what, Steven?  Drawing policy out of a hat?  Throwing darts at a wall with policies listed on it?




> Economics theories are supposed to be scientific (or at least they pretend to be) : descriptive, informative, as they attempt to be predictive.  _Not prescriptive._  Thus, it should not matter what policy is in place. Any economics theory should be able to see a policy as just so much information.  Then, as that policy is implemented, you _might_ be able to test just how accurate or reliable each economics theory was in being able to describe or predict -- NEVER PRESCRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE - its effects on  *all economies* within "the [*highly heterogeneous*] economy".


Good god.  Steven, the point of any science is to determine facts, and come up with theories to explain these facts.  It's not an end unto itself either: we learn about the world in order to make our lives better.  When we determine facts of economics, it's just common sense to form policies that recognize these facts, as that's the only way we have of making better policy, and thus making the world better.

The problem here is that you're simply not interested in making the world better.  Thus, facts which are troubling to your world-view are ignored, or dismissed.  It's just a fact that land is fixed in supply.  But this fact implies that taxing land by value would have predictable results troubling to your beliefs, so you have sought ways to prevent yourself from knowing the fact.  It's just that simple.




> My position is that rights should NEVER be derived (let alone eroded or abridged) on the basis of *any* economics theory.


I agree, but that's a strawman, because no one has advocated such a position.




> That's not ditching any of them. It's putting all of them in their proper place, because not doing that is what got us this deep into the truly $#@!ed up Keynesian nightmare we're living in now, as economics theories were elevated in status above fundamental principles, and even individual rights, as they suggest solutions to problems described that may not even exist -- or more importantly, that may not actually be problems in search of *statist solutions*.  Sticky wages as people refuse to take pay cuts in a growing economy, oh my! Liquidity traps, deflation and inelasticity of "the money supply", oh my! And people "hoarding" [their own] money? --- OH MY! --- what could be worse than that? Why, "the economy" would shut down and this would be catastrophic! These all require solutions. We can't have regular individuals with that kind of leverage and control.  Solution: Gee, a privately owned, privately controlled, politically unaccountable central banking control system with a monopoly on counterfeiting and central interest rate setting power might be just the ticket! It might actually solve "the problems" that our theories clearly show are facing "the economy"!


It's easy enough to complain that economics isn't perfect, but again, you fail to supply an alternative.  Since you seek to ditch economics, and I can assume you'll also oppose drawing policies from hats or the dart-method, what now?




> For economy meddlers and other statist distortionists, economic policy is always a "economy-wide" cost-benefits issue for "society", with actual rights and privileges for real individuals determined primarily by a bunch of theoretical fools and ideologues operating in vacuums with nothing but sociopathic regard for individuals or core principles.  Really, Matt, they should be manning wood chippers, but I'm afraid there aren't enough.


Again, as opposed to what?  Just writing policy and hoping for the best?  Psychics?




> Yeah, that is the problem with refusing to know things, Matt. I said _exactly_ who Joe is, and your mind, which filters and blurs individuals into nonexistence and irrelevance, drew a complete blank. 
> 
> *Joe is a Free and Natural Citizen;*  a real human being and living Citizen. *There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about that.*   That is his legal status - pretty black and white, really.  That means he is not a foreigner, a collective, a partnership, a corporation, or anything else. Unlike EcoWarrier(sic), he is THE HIGHEST ranking caste member in his own society -- equal to all others of that same legal status.  All other entities - ANY ONE OR ANY THING  - that is not like *exactly* like Joe (not a living free and a natural Citizen) would be subject to taxes, regulations, and all manner of conditional behavior and existence within our economy, as a matter of their conditionally privileged, fully alienable legal status.  Joe, on the other hand, and everyone just like Joe (ALL free and natural Citizen individuals) would be FREE.  Forever.


Not under your system, he wouldn't.  You've admitted that since, as you claim, no one can be free without having some land, and since, as you *prescribe*, all land would be owned by individuals, *each person who didn't inherent land would have to buy his freedom from some existing landowner*.

Free?  Please.

----------


## Roy L

> Yes, they are. All of them are, in the aggregate.


Nope.  If they try, people will just use less land.  That puts the owners of the unused land over a barrel.  They have to drop their price in order to get tenants and not lose money to the tax.  If they just abandon the land, it is then available for use, and some other landowner will then be stuck with land taxes to pay and no tenant to pay them.  Because supply is fixed, the market just forces the rent of all the land back down to its pre-tax level.



> They just aren't able (in theory) to gain a competitive advantage that allows them to charge more rent _than the other landowners_, assuming the tax is proportionately levied on everyone.  Assuming a perfectly competitive market, if the tax increases, all rents charged by landlords will increase in the aggregate.


Nope.  Flat false.  It's been known for 200 years that landowners can't pass on a land value tax, as explained above, and that fact is not disputed by any competent economist. 



> The effect of the poor paying rents to landlords doesn't go away at all (it actually increases, as shown below).


No such thing is shown below, or ever will be, anywhere.



> A portion of it only shifts from the property rents landlord to the ground rents landlord, the state.


The UIE portion no longer has to be paid at all, proving you wrong.



> The fact remains that supply is a dynamic variable - not fixed or inelastic - within its physical, theoretical limits.


The fact remains that the supply of land is fixed.



> Here's an excerpt from an online tutorial (with the five variable criteria I mentioned bolded in red):  
> 
> Microeconomics - Theory of Supply
> Supply is defined as the quantity of a product that a producer is willing and able to supply onto the market at a given price in a given time period.


That definition specifically excludes land, as it is not a product, and has no producer.  That is very much the point: something in fixed supply HAS NO PRODUCER BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE PRODUCED.



> The seller in that case is referred to as a "producer" (a subset of sellers/suppliers), just as the "thing" being supplied is referred to as "product" (a subset of any thing being supplied). Supply is not constrained to producers and products, but the required elements are all there, regardless how the sentence is constructed.


False.  A seller is not a producer.  People selling the same piece of land around and around amongst each other does not produce land or increase the supply of land.  B selling a thing to A does not increase the supply of that thing.  That is one of the numerous places where you are going wrong.



> LAW OF SUPPLY:
> The direct relationship between supply price and the quantity supplied, assuming ceteris paribus factors are held constant. This economic principle indicates that an increase in the price of a commodity results in an increase in the quantity of the commodity that sellers are willing and able to sell in a given period of time, if other factors are held constant.


Wrong again.  The Law of Supply does not apply to land because sellers are NOT ABLE to sell more, no matter how high the price goes.  If you produce 10 bushels of corn in the expectation of selling it for $1/bushel, you might well produce 15 bushels if you expect to get $2/bushel.  But if you have 10 acres of land, you can't sell 15 acres no matter how much anyone offers you.  That is all fixed supply MEANS.



> See that, Matt?  For anything to be counted as "supply", there must be:
> 
> 1) ability to sell


Right.  And for anything to be in *increased* supply, there must be an *increased* ABILITY to sell.  But landowners have no ABILITY to sell more land than they own, no matter how high the price goes.  That is all "fixed supply" means.



> That is not my idiosyncrasy at work. That is truly basic economics.  Inability to sell - NOT SUPPLY.


Bingo.  All the additional acres of land that no one is ABLE to sell because they don't exist and can never exist AREN'T PART OF THE SUPPLY.



> Both of my quotes stand as the truth as it relates to land and LVT.  The greater the increase on the tax levied on the basis of landownership, the more land is sold (supplied) to avoid the tax, given that the cost of ownership (to the state) becomes artificially prohibitive. That's not controversial, that's a geoist plank!


That's just reduced price, not increased supply.



> You're only confused because you don't know any basic economics.  See "supply" above.  It's not a complicated concept, Matt.


Well, it was complicated enough for you to miss the fact that increased supply requires an ABILITY to sell more, an ability that in the case of land does not exist.



> If every landowner was levied at a rate that was impossible for anyone to pay, everyone would be forced to sell (100% supplied to the market) to avoid the tax.


??  "Forced to sell"??  To whom?  You are just spewing nonsense.



> Those who could not sell would still not be able to pay and would lose title anyway, which means that no matter what, 100% of the land would be "supplied" (even if by the repossessing state alone) to the market.


100% of the land is always supplied (available) to the market.



> With LVT, the state is saying, in effect, "Landowners and land developers, you can profit from rents on any 'artificial land' you build above ground.


No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again, Steven.  Landowners qua landowners do not build anything.  You are trying to sneak in a premise that landowners are productive contributors of improvements.  But you know that they are not.  You have to use self-contradictory terms like, "artificial land" to prevent yourself and others from knowing the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.



> The state profits from the ground itself, and everything below and found therein."


No.  "Profit" is an excess of revenue over expenses, and the state spends its revenue.  So that is another fabrication on your part.



> That is the fundamental division - the partnership between landowners/developers and the state.


Another fabrication.   



> It is also why developers and speculators would be *more* inclined to own just enough of the best lands (lakeside, bay view, downtown commercial, etc.,) on which to build a vertical profit tower.


I.e., they would put the land they held to productive use, and would no longer have a motive to hold good land out of use.  Right.



> All the rent-seeking behavior is still there, as before.


No, that is just you makin' $#!+ up again.  There is no longer a motive to accumulate land you aren't using.



> The incentive is now in place to make sure that all resources that are taken out of the earth are simply lifted above the earth (where taxes are supposedly nonexistent) on as small a land footprint as possible.  THAT is how "new land" comes into existence under LVT.


These are good examples of the absurdities the evil engage in to enable atrocities.



> LVT is a mechanism for artificially concentrating urban populations (read=the majority of the world population), which are herded vertically and condensed into less horizontal space.


No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again.  LVT enables the NATURAL and EFFICIENT concentration of activity that makes infrastructure most cost-effective, and allows people to reduce the time they waste in transit between their various destinations.



> The "community activity" that actually provides the income for landowners to pay land rents is the very basis for the Land Value Tax in the first place.


Which Steven wants landowners to be able to appropriate in return for doing nothing.



> Now for the Neat Trick - the insidious consequence and side effect, regardless of anyone's intent:


I.e., now for Steven to make some stupid $#!+ up again:



> Since a downtown skyscraper (or casino in the desert) with lots of "community activity" *automatically raises the land rents/LVT on all empty adjacent parcels in its vicinity*, all a developer needs to do in order to _price the majority of the population completely out of neighboring land market_ (in terms of LVT cost of ownership ONLY) is concentrate on developing his own small parcel of land!


I.e., concentrate on being productive!



> That automatically makes all the remaining parcels in the vicinity -- including empty lots -- cost prohibitive to all but the most well-healed developers.


I.e., the opportunities at that location have become so great that only a small number of highly productive people are qualified to make the best use of them.  I'm still waiting for Steven to come up with a downside to this phenomenon.



> Vertical profit towers with "captive concentrated communities"


So now taking advantage of superior opportunities makes one a "captive"??

Steven is just makin' $#!+ up again.



> eventually become profitable to the point where Land Value Tax is not a concern at all.


How?  It's the location that makes them so profitable, and that value will be recovered by LVT.



> This in turn concentrates the power of landownership, with long-term speculation on smaller spaces in the very best areas.


Pure fabrication.  There is no point in speculation, as any increase in land value is taxed away.



> The nearby outlying parcels are always shielded from  ownership by any average person due to the increased LVT on adjacent parcels - all based on proximity alone.


"Shielded from ownership" by any average person?  What does that even mean?  Average people can't make the most of the best opportunities?  True enough.  That's why we don't want to stop the market from allocating those opportunities to the most productive people.



> The landowner can just take the rents from the population that is now herded and confined to vertical profit towers,


"Herded"?  "Confined"??  These are just stupid and dishonest propaganda words with no relation to reality.  The UIE enables people to live in the locations they prefer, for free.



> and give the state its proportionate due -- just like Hong Kong.


It would be much better than HK, as already explained, because HK relies on long-term leases with fixed payments.



> Only in the case of LVT, there are no leasehold titles; just conditional ownership titles, held in perpetuity by anyone who is willing to continue paying the taxes.


Correct.



> Which are no longer a problem,


They were never a problem, any more than paying for a loaf of bread is a problem.



> since all the livable/usable "artificial land" is now floating safely above ground, out of the reach of taxes, with all the "productive community members" paying rents mostly on capital improvements.


Bald self-contradiction.  There is no way to make those "vertical profit towers" make any economic sense unless their locations are extremely advantageous.  And LVT makes those who occupy advantageous locations pay full market value for them.

----------


## Roy L

> I am not an economist


Ain't that the truth...



> Supply is the total quantity of a good or service that is available for purchase (seller both willing and able) at a given price, within a given time.


No, available to the market.  Any amount that already exists in market participants' hands is part of supply.



> You can't get it out of your head that SUPPLY IS NOT THE TOTAL QUANTITY IN EXISTENCE.


It is the quantity available to the market.  In the case of land, price does not affect it.



> In the real world, if the general market price of a good rises (assuming no hyperinflation or other economic distortions), MORE SELLERS will be willing to sell more of those goods at that higher price.  That is absolutely true of the land and real estate markets, which are no exception to that rule.


It is definitely an exception, because people trading the same inventory around and around does not make more of it available to the market.  When you sell your car to a neighbor, it does not increase the supply of cars.  Probably there is no way to explain that fact to you so clearly and simply that you would become willing to know it.



> Everybody wants to buy low and sell high.


But for everyone who buys low, someone is selling low, and for everyone who sells high, someone is buying high.  Hello?



> A "SALE" requires both a seller and buyer.


And a price requires a sale.  Bingo.



> A SUPPLY requires a SELLER. Period. Duh.


No.  If no car changes hands in a given period of time, that does not mean the supply of cars has dropped to zero, and it does not matter how long that period of time is.



> You're back to confusing "supply" with "sale"


That's *your* confusion.



> Look at the original definition of supply, and you will see that it does not depend on an actual sale.


It also does not depend on an intention to sell.



> I take out a 1,000 separate ebay listings for 1,000 individual coins at an asking price of $10 per coin. IF NOT ONE COIN SELLS my "quantity supplied" is still 1,000 coins at a price of $10 per coin.


None sold, so there was no price.  A wish or hope is not a price.



> If I offer ten thousand acres at a bazillion dollars per acre, that is the quantity supplied


Right.  And it is the same quantity supplied if it is offered at $1/acre.  THAT'S WHAT FIXED SUPPLY MEANS.



> *Taxed things simply get distorted.*


Except when the tax removes a distortion.



> If the tax is on the basis of ownership, those things that serve as the basis for that tax get supplied more (dumped on the market to avoid the tax).  They get SUPPLIED MORE, but they are DEMANDED LESS based on that same market distortion, because the artificial increase in the cost of ownership applies equally to buyers and sellers, and thus encourages selling while simultaneously discouraging buying.


No.  The supply is the same.  The price is just lower.



> Again, LVT makes land cheap to buy, NOT CHEAP TO OWN.


Right.  And that's a GOOD thing.



> Again, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, as you are right back to clinging to the false notion that land is "fixed in supply".


Land is definitely fixed in supply.



> The artificial sprawl we suffer from now is a direct result of unsound currency and corrupt, centralized monetary policy.


Silliness.



> Skyscrapers, otherwise known as Casinos in the desert, prove that to be complete and utter bull$#@!.


They prove you wrong.



> First they are built, however small, but larger and more expensive than surrounding improvements. By developers. Entrepreneurs.  It is not until the people come that the land value increases.


No, that is false and absurd.  Entrepreneurs build skyscrapers BECAUSE the people are ALREADY there and the land is ALREADY so valuable that it makes economic sense.  



> The only difference is that the geolibs want the cause of land values attributed solely to buyers (economic "community" activity)


As land's supply is fixed, its value is determined solely by demand.



> and public infrastructure - not landowner developments, which are the primary reason everyone came to buy in the first place.


False.  Landowners don't contribute development, and development follows services and infrastructure, not the other way around.



> The focus was not on the cost of the skyscrapers, but rather on the effects that skyscrapers have (based on the "economic activity" therein) on making NEIGHBORING LANDS COST PROHIBITIVE, based on increasing LVT under an LVT regime.


???  How can they be "cost prohibitive"?  LVT is just what someone WILLINGLY pays for the economic advantage the land confers on its user.  If the rental price goes up, it's only because that price is *NOT* prohibitive to *someone*.



> And that is primarily because geolibs fail to acknowledge "developments" as a primary contributing factor for increased "economic activity", and therefore land values.


No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up about what geoists have plainly said.  Development is very much a contributor to the community-provided opportunities and amenities that increase land rent.  But it is *developers* -- members of the *community* -- who contribute developments, not landowners.



> On the whole, all things being equal, and cost being no consideration, MOST PEOPLE would _prefer_ to live in houses, not $#@!ing apartments.


But cost IS a consideration.  Duh.  And most people are not all people.



> LVT sets in motion a dynamic that makes the cost of landownership, and therefore homeownership and cost of living in a home, DELIBERATELY AND ARTIFICIALLY COST PROHIBITIVE.


No.  Even without a UIE, LVT actually makes homeownership more affordable.  The homeowner is no longer paying for government twice to support idle landowners, so he has much more disposable income to spend on a house; he does not have to pay all the future land rent up front, so he doesn't have to pay all that mortgage interest on the land cost; and the need to use land productively means there would be an ample supply of good, livable houses available at competitive prices, so he will be paying less for them, too.  With LVT, it would be routine for people to pay less than a year's (untaxed) wages in cash for a nice house in a good neighborhood.  If you weren't deterred by a fixer-upper, you could get a livable house in a good neighborhood for a _month's_ wages.

----------


## HigherVision

> But greed, somehow, is good...?


Yes.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Steven, the point of any science is to determine facts, and come up with theories to explain these facts.  It's not an end unto itself either: we learn about the world in order to make our lives better.  When we determine facts of economics, it's just common sense to form policies that recognize these facts, as that's the only way we have of making better policy, and thus making the world better.


And that is precisely how the Fed came into being, in an attempt to make "the world" (whatever the hell that means) better. Facts were fabricated, amplified and/or distorted "determined" (e.g., sticky wages, liquidity trap, inelasticity of money supply, etc.,), along with conclusions that strongly suggested problems that were in dire need of solutions.   




> The problem here is that you're simply not interested in making the world better.


Any time someone suggests that they only want to make "the world" better, ask yourself "whose world", and at whose expense.  Your view of "the world" is unqualified, and your view "the problem" is arrogant, presumptuous, and wholly incorrect.  I am interested in making "the world" better, by ensuring that it is not contaminated by your people-enslaving treadmill ideals, as you make everyone, intentionally or not, servants to a monopolistic landlord state.   




> It's easy enough to complain that economics isn't perfect, but again, you fail to supply an alternative.


Of course I did. 

*MY ALTERNATIVE* (once again):  All taxes abolished *on anything* by free and natural Citizens who exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right.  That does not mean no taxes, nor does it mean no state.  The state exists, and taxes are levied by the state, at will, *on all other entities*.  

That is the alternative, and it's pretty simple, too, with individuals serving at all times as the check and balance on everything - including the state and those entities that exist and/or behave as a matter of conditional privilege only. 




> You've admitted that since, as you claim, no one can be free without having some land, and since, as you *prescribe*, all land would be owned by individuals, *each person who didn't inherent land would have to buy his freedom from some existing landowner*.


Hmm, let's put that another way, shall we?  No one can be free without some currency, and since, as I *prescribe*, all currency would be owned by individuals, *each person who didn't inherent currency would have to buy his freedom from some existing currency owner*.  

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like...a "free market", where unlike scarce resources are willingly exchanged. "Circulated" even. Like they are now, as ownership of scarce resources, including land, already does changes hands as "property", with a supply that is never fixed from the perspective of buyers and sellers. 




> It is definitely an exception, because people trading the same inventory around and around does not make more of it available to the market.


People trading *the same inventory of currency* around would not make more of a fixed "supply" of currency available to "the market" (the macroeconomy in aggregate terms only), but it is certainly, repeatedly and continually, would not be fixed in terms of how it is made available to individuals in the market.  




> When you sell your car to a neighbor, it does not increase the supply of cars.


To "the economy", no. That aggregate total "stock" of cars in existence, which you refer to macroeconomic context only as supply, does not increase.  However, from the micro-economic point of view of my neighbor who is buying, it certainly does increase the *supply available to him*. And every car that is not available to him - especially at the price he is able and willing to pay, is not part of that "supply".  And if others, upon learning that my neighbor is in the market for a car, step up competitively to make their used car available to him as well, that increases "the supply" available to that neighbor who is buying.  




> If no car changes hands in a given period of time, that does not mean the supply of cars has dropped to zero, and it does not matter how long that period of time is.


That's because, as an aggregate-thinking, world/human-encompassing collectivist, you don't know anything about the market supply function, supply schedules or curves, from the microeconomics point of view of the supplier.  Your head is firmly and permanently up in the macroeconomic stratosphere la-la land, where the oxygen needed to reason things through is truly scarce. You are stuck on a meaningless definition that applies only to the aggregate - without regard to, and not from the perspective of, any individual (the only thing that truly matters to those individuals, and the only way to explain their behavior as it relates to supply and demand).   

Furthermore, when you do manage to "fuzzy down" into a quasi-microeconomics level, which you only narrowly choose to understand, you refer to supply as it relates to "producers" only, even though *producers are only one subset, one type, of seller*, or "supplier".   People selling used cars are also sellers/suppliers, even though they are not "producing" (manufacturing) anything at all. And yet their "supply" _fluctuates_ as a function of their ability and willingness to sell, quantity, price and time. 

So let's say that no cars change hands (in a given week), but those same cars are still offered for sale at the same asking price a week later. In that case, the supply of cars (made available to the market at those prices over that time period) remains the same. IF, however, the lack of sales causes _some_ of those sellers to lower their *asking price* (the price at which they would be willing to sell a single car), while others take their cars off the market entirely (*owners change their minds, and are not willing to sell at a lower price*), that represents (from the microeconomics perspective) a CHANGE IN SUPPLY.  That is because supply is, in part, a function of price.  




> None sold, so there was no price.  A wish or hope is not a price.


Of course, *there is a specific kind of price involved there, which is not the market price, as not one car has sold* -- which means that the market price has yet to be established by a transaction wherein the buyer and seller were in agreement. But you wouldn't know that, because once again you have trapped yourself (read=are hoping to trap others) into a single narrow definition of price, which you erroneously assume applies to every usage of the word price. I don't think you can get more obtuse than that, Roy, but it's one of your defining characteristics.   

See? You're a One-Definition-Trick Pony.  Only one definition of price in Roy's la-la land.  Roy sees the word "price", and to him that means Market Price. At all times. Strictly. Solely. No exceptions, and no alternative meanings, despite the fact that economist employ many different uses and meanings of the word price.  




> Entrepreneurs build skyscrapers BECAUSE the people are ALREADY there and the land is ALREADY so valuable that it makes economic sense.


Oh, well, that would certainly explain Las Vegas, then.  All those people already there, with that land already so valuable that "conferred benefits onto the owners" that someone thought, "Hey, I know! Let's profit from all these wandering desert people who have collected here and give them all a place to gamble and relax!"




> Landowners don't contribute development...


That's some funny $#@! right there, Roy.  Pretty daft.  You could have said "Landownership does not contribute to development", but that would have opened up a different can of worms. So instead you said "Landowners".  You are so blinded in your hatred of landowners and landownership that you see landowners as a kind of different breed altogether, as if that is all they are, as landowners are nothing-but-landowners in your mind!

*ROY:* "LANDOWNER - BAAAAD, DEVELOPER - GOOOOD. REWARD GOOD PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPER, PUNISH EVIL IDLE LANDOWNER!"
*Landowning Developer:* "Works for me!"




> ???  How can they be "cost prohibitive"?  LVT is just what someone WILLINGLY pays for the economic advantage the land confers on its user.  If the rental price goes up, it's only because that price is *NOT* prohibitive to *someone*.


Well, obviously, the life boats from the Titanic were not "cost prohibitive", as they conferred advantages on their users. If the price paid for getting onto one of those boats went up, it was only because that price was *NOT* prohibitive to *someone*. That is proof positive that the the Titanic Lifeboat Community was not only efficient, but it rewarded only the most productive users.  Furthermore, the fact that the Titanic "lifeboat community" had 100% survivors is obviously a testament to its "swimming" success (pardon the pun, and pay no attention to the floating blue-white bodies in the water).   

Which *someone*, Roy? You make no distinction between the *"someone(s)"* you threw overboard. You are pointing to the winners only, as if there was nothing but winners, as you say, "Who? Duhhhh, I don't see anyone it was cost prohibitive for." Those for whom land became "cost prohibitive" are the blue bodies with their UIE life vests floating in your icy LVT waters.  Assuming they even got a "value redemption" vest for enough good buoyancy to keep them afloat, of course.  Otherwise, bye Jack, bye Granny... ::: blub blub blub :::




> But it is *developers* -- members of the *community* -- who contribute developments, not landowners.


*Landowning Developer:* "Works for me!"




> Even without a UIE, LVT actually makes homeownership more affordable.


The cost of homeownership falls, even as the perpetual cost of landownership rises. Zero-sum game at best. At worst, a perpetual people-sweeper, as the natural meritocracy that is the free market, which rewards people on the basis of how well they serve their fellow beings, becomes a FASCIST/SOCIALIST meritocracy, where people are artificially rewarded on the basis of how well they serve the state.  




> The homeowner is no longer paying for government twice to support idle landowners.


The homeowner (who is also a landowner) now pays the government not once, not twice, but perpetually and infinitely to support the new idle state landlord, the rents of which are due without regard to whether or even if anything is given "in return".

----------


## Roy L

> Yes.


I don't know quite how to tell you this, but Gekko was the bad guy.

Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil.  It is always to satisfy their greed (excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves) that people do evil (deliberate violation of others' rights without just compensation).

Therefore, to claim that greed is good is deeply, grotesquely evil.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I don't know quite how to tell you this, but Gekko was the bad guy.


Not nearly as bad as Marx and Mao. 




> Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil.  It is always to satisfy their greed (excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves) that people do evil (deliberate violation of others' rights without just compensation).
> 
> Therefore, to claim that greed is good is deeply, grotesquely evil.


Yeah, almost as bad as any over-generalizing class warfare ideologue who is presumptuous enough to want to determine what "needs or deserves" means on behalf of everyone else. Now that is a bottomless cesspool when it comes to grotesquely evil. Those types make Gekko look like Gandhi.

----------


## Roy L

> Not nearly as bad as Marx and Mao.


You know that Marx and Mao were both anti-geoists, like you.

And Gekko is actually far worse.  Marx was merely a misguided crank, and Mao at least ended the constant warfare that had wracked China for 100 years.  That's an omelette that could never have been made without breaking a lot of eggs.  The Gordon Gekkos of the world are sociopaths of a very particular and far worse sort: soulless, amoral greed robots.  Soulless, amoral greed robots are always landowners, because that is the easiest and most reliable way to profit from the deliberate, uncompensated violation of others' rights -- i.e., from evil.  The soulless, amoral greed robot is just the distilled essence of pure evil, because his only motive is greed, the root of all evil.  So he will cheerfully rob, enslave, starve, torture and kill other human beings to obtain even the smallest material gain.

We've already seen that you are in favor of the two Holocausts a year that landowner privilege inflicts on the innocent.  You've admitted that you are a follower of the propertarian cult that lays many millions of human sacrifices on the altar of the Great God Property EVERY YEAR.  And the toll of robbery, enslavement, torment, starvation, despair and death inflicted by the propertarian cult that you worship exceeds the anti-geoist depredations of Marx and Mao combined EVERY FIVE YEARS.



> Yeah, almost as bad as any over-generalizing class warfare ideologue


Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning. -- Warren Buffett

The privileged are waging a war to enslave the productive, and you are on the side of the privileged.  It's really just that simple.



> who is presumptuous enough to want to determine what "needs or deserves" means on behalf of everyone else.


No, that's just more stupid, dishonest $#!+ you made up.  The definitions of those words can be found in dictionaries, and you know very well what they mean.  You just have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that the simple dictionary definitions of ordinary words prove that you are rationalizing, justifying and defending evil.

Servants of evil always have to find a way to deflect attention from the fact that they are enabling and empowering greed.  So your false and completely unsupported accusation that I have some presumptous agenda to 'determine what "needs or deserves" means on behalf of everyone else' has to be understood as a psychological necessity to prevent you from committing suicide in self-revulsion.



> Now that is a bottomless cesspool when it comes to grotesquely evil.


ROTFL!!  I see.  So now even lexicographers must be denounced as a "bottomless cesspool when it comes to grotesquely evil," because they accurately identify what ordinary words mean, and those words can be used to identify the fact that you are a servant of evil?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...



> Those types make Gekko look like Gandhi.


As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

----------


## Roy L

> If capital starts off as land, and we can't appropriate land, how does capital come to exist as property, not subject to LVT?


Through an act of production that adds to the sum of wealth: being removed from nature and made into a product of labor that did not previously exist.  Picking fruit from a natural tree is production: the fruit in the basket is something that did not exist in nature.  Saying, "The fruit on this natural tree is mine," OTOH, is appropriation.  It adds nothing to the sum of wealth.



> Also, if the landowners are somehow forcing the rest of the community to increase land values


That is not what is happening.  All the landowners could be comatose and the community would still make them richer just the same.



> then wouldn't the more precise mechanism be a 100% capital gains tax on land?


No, because the current rental value of land is the current welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner.  He is pocketing it even if he never sells the land.  A 100% capital gains tax on land would just freeze titles in the hands of the current owners, removing all liquidity from the market and preventing the price system from improving allocative efficiency.



> Next, the notion of using land rent to get people change how they use land seems eerily similar to deliberately debasing currency in order to stop people 'hoarding' cash.


Currency is presumably issued to serve as a medium of exchange, and hoarding it rather defeats the purpose.  There is also a problem of positive feedback creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: currency is also supposed to serve as a stable measure of value, but when people hoard it, it gets scarce, its value rises (deflation), leading to even more hoarding in expectation of further deflation.  This vicious circle can cause the economy to seize up, as occurred in the Great Depression.  Regulating the value and availability of money to optimize economic growth is a tricky problem, but one "solution" we can confidently say is no good is the current one of leaving the creation and regulation of the money supply up to private banksters.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You know that Marx and Mao were both anti-geoists, like you.


Complete arrogation of an entire factor of production for the state was definitely something Marx and Geoists have in common. The only thing they had against geoism is that it didn't go far enough in their minds.  




> ...Mao at least ended the constant warfare that had wracked China for 100 years.  That's an omelette that could never have been made without breaking a lot of eggs.


Nice rationale for murder by the tens of millions. Apologist much? How many "eggs" would you feel justified in seeing broken to make your LVT omelet? 




> We've already seen that you are in favor of the two Holocausts a year that landowner privilege inflicts on the innocent.


What?!  What the hell are you talking about? I distinctly remember ordering four holocausts per year as a bare minimum.  The nerve of those lazy goldbricking holocaust slackers of mine.  




> You've admitted that you are a follower of the propertarian cult that lays many millions of human sacrifices on the altar of the Great God Property EVERY YEAR.


Roy, it's not that your whackjob, moonbat crank soundbites sound like they were ripped off from a ragtag cult movement from the late sixties. That's not what makes me giggle inside.  It's that you don't even see it. That is what cracks me up most.  In terms of who has the most detrimental effect on geoism, and how it is understood and received by others, you're far more anti-LVT than me! In fact, if it was ever found that you were really a counter-insurgent working against LVT, everything about your approach would begin to make perfect sense.

Look at the crap you type with what I assume is a perfectly straight face:




> And the toll of robbery, enslavement, torment, starvation, despair and death inflicted by the propertarian cult that you worship exceeds the anti-geoist depredations of Marx and Mao combined EVERY FIVE YEARS.


Priceless. You meant that $#@! too, I can tell. 




> “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett
> 
> The privileged are waging a war to enslave the productive, and you are on the side of the privileged.  It's really just that simple.


Would you like a side of psychedelic blacklight posters or a complementary sleeping bag in the public park to go with that?  




> Servants of evil always have to find a way to deflect attention from the fact that they are enabling and empowering greed.


The solution for you is simple then, Roy. Stop trying to be and do just that. Nobody's forcing you. 




> ROTFL!!  I see.  So now even lexicographers must be denounced...


No, just a single clueless wannabe ideologue who misapprehends and twists most of what the real lexicographers have actually written to suit his own agenda.

----------


## Roy L

> Complete arrogation of an entire factor of production for the state was definitely something Marx and Geoists have in common.


No, you are aware that geoists favor market allocation of land to private users, and *Marx himself* called this proposal "capitalism's last ditch."

You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself by your relentless fabrications to rationalize evil and justify injustice.  As you have chosen the path of anti-geoist evil, you have no choice.



> The only thing they had against geoism is that it didn't go far enough in their minds.


No, you are aware that Marx and the socialists and communists are actually in agreement with neoclassical capitalism against the very foundation of geoism: the land-capital dichotomy.



> Nice rationale for murder by the tens of millions.


It stopped murder by the scores of millions.



> Apologist much?


Realist.



> How many "eggs" would you feel justified in seeing broken to make your LVT omelet?


Every one that opposed liberty, justice and truth by force, that's for sure.



> What?!  What the hell are you talking about? I distinctly remember ordering four holocausts per year as a bare minimum.  The nerve of those lazy goldbricking holocaust slackers of mine.


To the soulless, amoral greed robot, another Holocaust a year is of no concern if it puts another dollar in his pocket.



> You meant that $#@! too, I can tell.


It's the literal truth.



> Would you like a side of psychedelic blacklight posters or a complementary sleeping bag in the public park to go with that?


Warren Buffett was clearly stating a truth of which he had first-hand knowledge.  You just have to deny and refuse to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.



> No, just a single clueless wannabe ideologue who misapprehends and twists most of what the real lexicographers have actually written to suit his own agenda.


I quote dictionaries to support my correct English usage.  The only time you quote dictionaries is to claim falsely that they support your usage when they self-evidently contradict it.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
> 
> How many "eggs" would you feel justified in seeing broken to make your LVT omelet?
> 
> 
> Every one that opposed liberty, justice and truth by force, that's for sure.


Excellent. We're at least in perfect agreement on our respective levels of commitment. I am just as opposed to the real slavery that is LVT as you are at pretending landownership is slavery, in and of itself. Let there be war.

----------


## Roy L

> Yeah, once we get past that little detail of the involuntary, non-market-based, non-beneficiary-pay, non-value-for-value transaction called, "The state has a monopoly claim on all land rents".


That "transaction" is required to correct the earlier involuntary, non-market-based, non-beneficiary-pay, non-value-for-value "transaction" called, "I now own what you formerly had the liberty to use, so from now on you'll be paying me for everything government, the community and nature provide there, or you'll do without."

The community's "monopoly" claim on land rents (all land markets are inherently monopoly markets) is based on the fact that it provides the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities that create them, and enables the private landholder to collect them.

So on what, exactly, is the private landowner's claim on publicly created rents based, hmmmmmm?

Other than his unlimited greed for unearned wealth, that is...



> Once we get past that little coup that many would see as *theft*,


But as I have already proved to you so many times, the real theft is the landowner's forcible appropriation of what neither he nor anyone else ever created, and that others, before he stole it, were perfectly at liberty to use:

_THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

Is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?

If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?_



> it's all voluntary sailing after that!


Indeed it is.  It is certainly much more voluntary to pay the creator of land value for it once through a consensual, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction than to be forced to pay its creator for it in taxes *without* getting it, and then have to pay someone else who *didn't* create it in order actually to get it.  That's *really* an involuntary, non-market-based, non-beneficiary-pay, non-value-for-value transaction.



> Why, after that, we're all just shopping in Roy's Progressive LVT Land Rent Store! YAY!  All voluntary, doncha know. If you don't want to pay (perpetual, never-ending rental fees to the state) for a resource, don't use that resource!


Why would the payment for perpetual benefits (whose value is only known when they happen) not continue perpetually, being adjusted according to their value when they happen?  Your demand for perpetual benefits in return for temporary payments simply demonstrates that the basis of your whole philosophy is your greed to get something for nothing.



> Why, once we establish that it's just One Big Happy Collectivized Monopolistic Land Rent Store,


<yawn>  How predictably puerile.



> we can then reason that "People would have no reason to avoid "high taxes" on land any more than they avoid paying for the groceries they want."


Which is exactly correct.  People willingly pay for value they want.



> Forget that it's a moronic analogy, as groceries are perishable and NEVER RENTED OUT.


Huh?  BWAHAHHHAHAAAAAHAHAAAA!!!

Talk about moronic!  What on earth could that have to do with it?  The analogy is just as valid if we talk about renting a car rather than buying groceries.  Buying groceries is just a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, market-based, value-for-value transaction that everyone is more familiar with than renting a car.  It's no less analogous.



> And forget that there would be no option to grow the "land=groceries" you need (not simply want) should the Monopolistic State Land Grocer decide to get gross with his Groceries=Land Rental Prices.


Same option as if the private landowner decides to get gross with his demands: do without.  The difference, of course, is that the government is accountable for such incompetent policies through voting.  The private landowner is not accountable at all, and can cut off everyone else's noses to spite his own face.



> And forget that if everyone was a private landowner, there would be no "voluntary" payment due to any "fellow" private landowner in the first place.


<yawn>  And most of all, forget that no one would get to *be* a private landowner without making such a "voluntary" payment to some "fellow" private landowner for what government, the community and nature provide.

You simply can't evade the stubborn fact that paying the state for land is at least paying the one providing the benefit, while paying a private landowner for it is exactly the same as paying off a parasitic protection racketeer: you pay him not to deprive you of what you would be perfectly at liberty to use and benefit from if he had never existed.



> Oh yeah, I can see the atrocity of slavery as a result of LVT,


Because it is so absurd, dishonest and implausible, like everything else you claim to "see" about LVT.  Right.



> But do tell me, Mr. Argument-By-Strawman-Ridicule Salesman, do you have anything more in the state's historical size and color we could look at? You know, a shoe that actually fits? Something more in the realm of *absolute probability, not just possibility, based on actual present behavior and past history* of the state?  Any real precedences that might give us an idea of what the state *would likely do* in such a case?


Try to maximize revenue.  Which under LVT means try to serve the public interest as honestly and efficiently as possible.



> That's where your macroeconomics head in the vacuum has failed you, as you obviously don't know anything about the economics of art, or long term demand with respect to rare and unique works.


Whose supply just happens to be fixed, like the supply of land.



> Hell, for that matter, you don't even believe that value is subjective!


It's definitely not subjective.  That's utility, not value.  Value is what a thing would trade for; therefore it requires the reconciliation of at least two different opinions; and it is therefore by definition not subjective.



> Worse yet, you're trying to reckon art using a standard commodity supply and demand model. It doesn't work that way, Roy.


No, that is a fabrication by you.  A standard commodity supply and demand model does not have fixed supply like the land and original art markets.



> Your example of an art collector who tries to increase the value of his Picasso (of all artists!) collection, by "burning a few canvasses" was truly pathetic.


Because it proves you wrong?



> Anyone who has dealt in the worlds of art and collectibles, and I have, knows that art value follows the economics of scarcity -- anything rare, unique, in finite supply and high in demand. It is entirely subjective, completely unpredictable, and the lower the supply and greater the demand, the more difficult, if not impossible, it is to model. It certainly does not follow a typical commodity supply and demand curve.


<sigh>  It follows the economics of collectibles markets because as with the land market, SUPPLY IS FIXED.



> If a thousand wealthy collectors of a certain specific collectible genre are all aware that _only three_ of a certain unique work, already high in demand within that genre, are known to exist, those particular pieces have greater value (IN THE EVER-SUBJECTIVE MINDS OF CERTAIN COLLECTORS), precisely because there are only three. Then comes the knowledge that two of these extant works were recently destroyed (we'll say in a fire, accidentally and not deliberately), such that every collector is now absolutely certain that only ONE piece remains.  It is ENTIRELY conceivable that the one remaining piece could be valued, and ultimately priced in exchange at many times the sum total prior exchange rates of the original three works, had all three have survived.  That could be for no other reason than the prestige in owning THE ONLY ONE, and only because ONE COLLECTOR felt strongly enough about it to outbid the THREE OTHER COLLECTORS who were also willing to pay handsomely for that same prestige.


But the demand for land in a LVT system is demand for use, not prestige or speculation.  Holding land out of use reduces total rent because it forces production onto less advantageous sites where it must be less efficient.  This is an inescapable result of market allocation.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Originally Posted by Roy L But greed, somehow, is good...?
> 			
> 		
> 
>  Yes.


 This displays the freeloading mentality of the majority of posters on this thread. This is sad. Especially when it is clear greed asisted in bringing down the world banking system.

----------


## Roy L

> I am just as opposed to the real slavery that is LVT as you are at pretending landownership is slavery, in and of itself.


But the objective historical facts have already proved me right and you wrong.  The condition of the landless in landowning societies where government does not intercede in their behalf to rescue them from the enslaving effects of landowning -- Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc. -- is always effectively indistinguishable from that of slaves, while there has never been a modern society that used a substantial LVT where people's condition resembled that of slaves -- and most certainly not the landowners' condition.  Indeed, very much the contrary: LVT's stellar record of success in lifting whole communities and nations out of poverty, injustice and oppression is not even approached by any other public policy.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Marx and Geoists have in common.


You, and all the others, have been continually been told that Marx and George had little, if anything, in common. You have been told that LVT is a mere tax shift and is apolitical, but in your conditioned freeloading mind this does not compute. You have been given books, youtube videos, links and references galore, yet your freeloading, greed indoctrination cannot be brought to sanity.  

Communist states would love the likes of you.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> *MY ALTERNATIVE* (once again):  All taxes abolished *on anything* by free and natural Citizens who exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right.  That does not mean no taxes, nor does it mean no state.  The state exists, and taxes are levied by the state, at will, *on all other entities*.


Steven, congratulations.  You ARE getting it. This is encouraging. Geoism is pretty well the same. Geoism is taxing:


Commonly created wealth that is then used for common purposes.The extraction of land's resourcesThe usage of common resources.Leaving private wealth in private hands

This eliminates economic parasites and leaves productive people and organization alone to concentrate on enterprise.

Steven please keep this.  Do not sway into the freeloading greed mentality that comes to the fore of your jumbled mind.  But keep it up Steven. Keep trying.

----------


## EcoWarrier

David Harvey as usual hit the reasons for failure clearly:

_"the suburban solution to absorbing surplus capital [pouring debt after debt into land], which has been going on for the past 50 or 60 years has probably reached its end point in the United States and you cannot do that anymore."_

David Harvey, theorist and author, talks about how urban and suburban expansion is used to rescue capitalism from recession -- but ends up sending it back into crisis....




In his solution I think Harvey is wrong in saying we can't go on building houses. We can't go on allowing private people to appropriate common wealth.  In the greed to get something for nothing in land speculation surplus money was poured into land which in turn collapsed the housing market. Housing in itself wasn't the problem. The problem was unearned income from increasing land values.  The western world needs houses, the problem was land.

Harvey does hit at the root problems of the causes - of which he tend to be brilliant at.

----------


## Steven Douglas

*
THE BANDIT - OR - DO IMPROVEMENTS ENTITLE ANY ENTITY TO RENTS ON WHAT NATURE PROVIDED FOR FREE?* 

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot. 

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has _purchased, for an annual fee_, a license from the state (i.e., gave the state, _not those being robbed_, "something in return") to charge tolls of those who use the pass. This license could be issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. _From the all-important perspective of those being robbed_, does that license fee paid by the bandit to the state constitute "giving something in return"?  

The tolls that the licensed bandit charges are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal?  How can the mere existence of that piece of *state-created paper* entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them? He is still just a thief, right? He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return _to the caravans he robbed_, save safe passage and protection from other bandits, _none of which would have been required in the absence of all bandits_. Would contributing something else in return (to those caravans, of course) make a difference where extortion or highway robbery are concerned?  Would legitimacy be in effect if the bandits offered other goods, services and opportunities to caravans on a strictly voluntary basis in addition to the rents charged for the pass itself, which nature provided for free?

But what if the bandit found that more people preferred to use another mountain pass, occupied by other state-licensed bandits, because the other bandits took less by force from the caravans than he did?  And what if that bandit responded by robbing the caravans in "his" pass of even less, such that word spread that it was more desirable to be robbed by him instead?  Would those _thefts of a lesser amount_ lend any legitimacy to the bandit's theft, such that it was no longer theft? 

What if, to be even more competitive with the other bandits in other passes, the bandit actually blanketed the pass with improvements, and assured a safer, more pleasant passage as an enticement?  Would that legitimize the bandits claim of rents on the underlying pass that nature nonetheless provided for free? 

And now suppose, that instead of a license to steal, the "native" bandit attends a summit, appeals to a league of nation-states, and negotiates a deal that causes the entire pass to become a recognized independent state. The once highly organized crime racket-cum-state now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable state. How  can the mere existence of that *state-created piece of paper*, even if it nothing but a former bandit now issuing it, entitling him to rob the caravans, alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

How has the nature of the bandit's business really changed? It's all legal now, but regardless whether he as a single bandit or a gang of organized bandits called a State, he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free. If he divides the proceeds equally amongst his Royal Family, friends, and other closely related mountain pass community members, that will not constitute "giving back" to those who continue to be robbed.  

What this really boils down to are the improvements that someone made to the pass, making it more desirable or easier to use than other passes. Are those improvements what entitles the bandit/licensed-bandit/state to rents on what nature nonetheless provided for free?   

 If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million improved passes, each with its own resident state/bandit, would the merchants' being at  liberty to choose which state/bandit robs them make the bandits'  enterprise nothing more than a competitive industry in a free market?

Do  the merchants, by using the improved pass when they know the  bandit/licensed-bandit/state is there to collect rents, "agree" to pay *for what nature provided for free* on the basis of something else offered in addition?  Because (as we have established), paying rents on the undeveloped pass was never necessary, as that pass was not provided by any human or collection of humans. So we are only talking about improvements, and whether their existence blanketing an area of land constitutes a perpetual entitlement to those that produced them - public or private.   And even if we consider that the caravans had the option of using another pass, does the existence of improvements, regardless of the source, mean that the merchants have agreed to pay rents on those improvements, even if it can be shown that they really only wanted to use what nature provided for free, and nothing else?  

In other words, is any entity (state, private bandit, licensed or otherwise) morally entitled to rents (let alone a monopoly on rents) for what nature nonetheless provided for free, and strictly on the basis of opportunities or improvements, directly or indirectly provided in addition to what nature nonetheless provided for free?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Not nearly as bad as Marx and Mao.


Marx did something bad? How? Where? Who did he kill?  Whose lives did he ruin? He was an economist who analyzed the economy of the 1800s and Capitalism in particular. 

His research and analysis to the _failures of Capitalism_ is still relevant today as in the 1800s, hence why Marx never goes away.

----------


## angelatc

> Housing in itself wasn't the problem. The problem was unearned income from increasing land values.


Wow.  Just, wow.

----------


## awake

“Abolition                of property in land and application of all rents of land to public                purposes.” Can any one guess where this is pulled from?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Marx did something bad? How? Where? Who did he kill?  Whose lives did he ruin?


Wow.  Only a truly Helter Skelter mind could have conceived those words.

The ideals and actions of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro, just to name some of the most brutal, were ALL spawned by Marxist visions and ideals.  But let's go with your seriously demented, tortured reasoning and play your One Degree Of Clean Hands Separation game. Marx never pulled a trigger AFAIK. Thus, you could say that Marx was every bit as innocent, with hands that were every bit as clean, as those of Charles Manson, who was also not known to have directly killed anyone.  But did Marx, like Charles Manson, believe, state, or even imply that it was necessary to kill anyone? You wouldn't happen to have a swastika carved into your forehead by any chance, would you? 




> You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)


And for the record, Marx was not just "an economist".  Marx was philosopher and a political ideologue -- an activist with a policy agenda who advocated for the cause he authored. 

*"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."* Communist Manifesto, Page 96 

Some Marxist apologists will ignore the track record of Communism and attempt to argue that none of Marx' statements should be taken literally, that they do not suggest or imply that mass murder is actually necessary for Marxist ideology to be enthroned. Roy (as well as all the mass murderers listed), thought otherwise, as a means to a greater good:

*ROY:* [mass murders by Mao] at least ended the constant warfare that had wracked China for 100 years. That's an omelette that could never have been made without breaking a lot of eggs.
*ME:* Nice rationale for murder by the tens of millions.
*ROY:* It stopped murder by the scores of millions.
*ME:* How many "eggs" would you feel justified in seeing broken to make your LVT omelet?
*ROY:* Every one that opposed liberty, justice and truth by force, that's for sure.




> Marx did something bad? How? Where? Who did he kill?  Whose lives did he ruin?


WTF - Don't ask me, ask the hundreds of millions who suffered and died as a direct result of his economics and political agenda experiments being put to the test by his followers.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public  purposes.” Can any one guess where this is pulled from?


Give us a clue.  It is nothing to do with Geonomics. Private ownership in land is not an issue in Geonomics.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> WTF - Don't ask me, ask the hundreds of millions who suffered and died as a direct result of his [Marx] economics and political agenda experiments being put to the test by his followers.


Marx died before all these misinterpretations of his theories came about. He never did anything.  He was an academic looking into why in an age of technical and economic progress in which masses of wealth were being generated, masses of grinding poverty existed. Marx mainly wrote of the FAILURE of CAPITALISM.  Which he largely got right.  Marx's  views on how to rectify the obvious problems were not the best, although many misinterpreted his teachings and only took a small aspect of it.  Marx would have been disgusted at the regimes, with dictators, that emerged after his death with his name attached. Marx went to Britain as he was persecuted and drive out of Continental countries because of his views. The British said yes you can come here as we like free thinker and you can write what you like.  Das Kapital was written in the British Museum Library. Marx is buried at Highgate Cemetery in London.

Henry George, and others of his ilk, who looked the the problem at the same time as Marx got it right - Marx and George locked horns over matters and disagreed sharply.  Others after George have honed it even more.

This will help you....
Marx's Labor Theory of Value....

----------


## Tudo

The real solution is to concentrate on becoming self sufficient and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or not doing. IF you become succesful you'll find you don't give a damn.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The real solution is to concentrate on becoming self sufficient and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or not doing. IF you become successful you'll find you don't give a damn.


Few nations can be self sufficient. That implies you have all natural resources you need and all types of food. Then you have to trade with other countries. 

Nations can improve their agriculture to make more food - in some cases it is cheaper to import food that grow it yourself.  Energy importation can be reduced drastically in many cases. 

The current trend in shippimng food from far off continents has a great beneficial effect if a famime occurs in one place. Then food can be shipped from around the world. If the transport mechanism is not there food cannot shipped.

----------


## Roy L

> *ROY:* [mass murders by Mao] at least ended the constant warfare that had wracked China for 100 years. That's an omelette that could never have been made without breaking a lot of eggs.
> *ME:* Nice rationale for murder by the tens of millions.
> *ROY:* It stopped murder by the scores of millions.
> *ME:* How many "eggs" would you feel justified in seeing broken to make your LVT omelet?
> *ROY:* Every one that opposed liberty, justice and truth by force, that's for sure.


You prefer to murder scores of millions rather than no one at all, as long as those murders put another dollar in your pocket.  You've made that clear.



> WTF - Don't ask me, ask the hundreds of millions who suffered and died as a direct result of his economics and political agenda experiments being put to the test by his followers.


"Hundreds of millions"?  Ah, no.  Marxists, including Mao, probably killed about 80 million, total.  But compare that to the BILLIONS who have suffered and died as a direct result of uncompensated, forcible removal of their rights to liberty by private landowning, a horror to which Marxism was an understandable though entirely ill-conceived reaction.

----------


## Roy L

> Wow.  Just, wow.


Oooooh, cogent.

He is in fact correct.  The global financial crisis was directly caused by land speculation: people buying houses they could not afford, assuming the land value increase would make it a good investment: i.e., "unearned income from increasing land values."

----------


## Roy L

> The real solution is to concentrate on becoming self sufficient and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or not doing. IF you become succesful you'll find you don't give a damn.


Translation: "Shut up and get back on the treadmill!"

----------


## Roy L

> Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Can any one guess where this is pulled from?
> [/SIZE][/FONT]


It's the first plank of the Communist Manifesto, and was put there to gain the attention, respect, sympathy, and allegiance of millions of freedom-loving people who had no interest in Marxism, socialism, or violent proletarian revolution, but were fed up with being the slaves of landowners.  Similar proposals had been made earlier by champions of liberty and justice like the French economists Quesnay and Turgot (i.e., the "physiocrats" from whom Adam Smith learned the virtues of free markets), Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, etc.

You can see a similar appeal to public sympathy in plank 10: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production."  Many people were concerned about education (Adam Smith had contributed an analysis showing why public funding of education was necessary to social and economic progress) and the horrendous conditions of child labor in mines and factories.  Marx knew this, of course, and tried to bring them on board with his proletarian revolution via plank 10.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> "Hundreds of millions"?  Ah, no.  Marxists, including Mao, probably killed about 80 million, total.


Yes, hundreds of millions. The "about 80 million, total" was just the ones that were killed as a direct result of war and policy implementation. Indirectly it was many times that number, as the effects lingered through generations.  For everyone killed there were many others that eventually died as a result.

If one wanted to get really goofy-loopy, with estimates that are completely out of all touch with reality, reason, logic and common sense, you could say something like:




> But compare that to the BILLIONS who have suffered and died as a direct result of uncompensated, forcible removal of their rights to liberty by private landowning, a horror to which Marxism was an understandable though entirely ill-conceived reaction.


Now that's when Absurdity itself spits its coffee in a coughing fit, unable to catch its breath for the credulity that you strain beyond the limits of the most fantastic.




> You prefer to murder scores of millions rather than no one at all, as long as those murders put another dollar in your pocket.  You've made that clear.


Shut up, Roy. Just, shut up already. Go defend Marxism and Marxist tyranny as "_understandable though entirely ill-conceived_" somewhere else. Not only are you not on the same planet as most, but that dungeon of a mind of yours is floating off in some other universe. I'd say that you'd better sell out while $#@! is still selling, but the reality is that nobody's buying your $#@! here except your tiny troll choir.  And they're already stocked up. 

Four Geoists, One Cup.

----------


## blustreeak

Why does Eco hijack all the threads to talk about Geoism?  Why don't you start a Geoist forum?

----------


## Roy L

Why do you do this to yourself, Steven?  You know you are just going to be demolished and humiliated for the fallaciousness, absurdity, and dishonesty of your "arguments."



> THE BANDIT - OR - DO IMPROVEMENTS ENTITLE ANY ENTITY TO RENTS ON WHAT NATURE PROVIDED FOR FREE?


What improvements?  Are you perhaps referring to the service government provides of securing people's rights against the depredations of bandits?  Or the services and infrastructure government provides that enables the communities on each end of the pass to create the economic opportunities that make the pass worth using by the merchants?  Those "improvements"?



> Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot. 
> 
> A thief, right?


So you agree that the landowner is effectively a thief.  Good.



> Now, suppose he has _purchased, for an annual fee_, a license from the state (i.e., gave the state, _not those being robbed_, "something in return") to charge tolls of those who use the pass. This license could be issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. From the all-important perspective of those being robbed, does that license fee paid by the bandit to the state constitute "giving something in return"?


Yes, of course it does, though it might be too subtle and indirect for stupid people to understand, and for dishonest people to be willing to know.

Remember, from the *"all-important perspective of those being robbed,"* the bandit is only taking what they are WILLING TO PAY to use the pass.  So it's not so much a case of their being victims as of his being a dirty, thieving, evil parasite -- exactly the same as landowners who charge rent that the user "willingly" pays for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides.  The new annual fee (assuming it is the annual rental value of the pass, like a full LVT implementation) allows the bandit no income at all from his forcible possession of the pass (i.e., it makes his profession of "bandit/landowner" redundant), and doesn't take anything from the merchants that they aren't willing to pay for the advantage of using the pass.  But it helps fund the government that secures the merchants' rights and thus makes the pass useful: i.e., makes it worth the merchants' while to use the pass and pay the toll.  It also helps to make sure the bandit doesn't get greedy and just take everything.  In ancient times, governments often subcontracted "tax farmers" who paid government for the privilege of practicing their profession -- forcibly wringing as much wealth from the populace as possible -- in a given area.  The erstwhile bandit now collecting pass rent (as, effectively, a government employee) is far preferable to a tax farmer.



> The tolls that the licensed bandit charges are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal?  How can the mere existence of that piece of *state-created paper* entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?


Very easily: he is now effectiely working as a tax collector for the government that makes it possible for the merchants to do business and use the pass in safety.  I.e., he is now actually contributing value, rather than just taking it, because he is helping the government recover some of the value *it* creates, thereby aiding not only the merchants but the cause of liberty, justice and prosperity.



> He is still just a thief, right?


Wrong, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.



> He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return _to the caravans he robbed_, save safe passage and protection from other bandits,


Wrong _again_.  There are no other bandits only because the safe passage is courtesy of the *government* of which he now effectively functions as an employee.



> _none of which would have been required in the absence of all bandits_.


It takes *government* to make sure all bandits are absent.  That's the little detail that you always conveniently "forget," and that demolishes your whole "argument."



> Would contributing something else in return (to those caravans, of course) make a difference where extortion or highway robbery are concerned?


Certainly, like security and the economic advantage use of the pass confers on them.  See above.



> Would legitimacy be in effect if the bandits offered other goods, services and opportunities to caravans on a strictly voluntary basis in addition to the rents charged for the pass itself, which nature provided for free?


Sure, if it was government effectively charging for it, because it is government that keeps bandits out of the picture, creates the economic opportunity to trade between the communities at each end of the pass, and thus makes the pass worth using at all.  



> But what if the bandit found that more people preferred to use another mountain pass, occupied by other state-licensed bandits, because the other bandits took less by force from the caravans than he did?


<sigh>  Try to remember, Steven: land rent measures what the market will *voluntarily pay* for the convenience and advantages of using the different available natural opportunities.  That's what land rent IS.



> And what if that bandit responded by robbing the caravans in "his" pass of even less, such that word spread that it was more desirable to be robbed by him instead?


He has no motive to charge less than the rent, because that measures the economic advantage the merchants obtain by using that pass rather than others they could use for less, or for free.  Rent can't be reduced by competition because it is the RESULT of competition among users for the advantage of using the best land, *which is fixed in supply*.



> Would those _thefts of a lesser amount_ lend any legitimacy to the bandit's theft, such that it was no longer theft?


It stopped being theft when it became a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, market-based, value-for-value transaction wherein the merchants paid government market value for the economic advantage it conferred on the pass user by keeping the pass clear of bandits, sustaining the communities that offer economic oportunity to the merchants who use the pass, etc.



> What if, to be even more competitive with the other bandits in other passes, the bandit actually blanketed the pass with improvements, and assured a safer, more pleasant passage as an enticement?


Then he's not just collecting land rents any more.  He's a developer, and collecting land rent has become tangential to his actual business of providing improvements, as proved by the fact that if he does not own the pass, he will be willing to pay rent for it to operate his improvements business.



> Would that legitimize the bandits claim of rents on the underlying pass that nature nonetheless provided for free?


It's already legitimate, as proved above, because he is effectively only functioning as a tax collector for the government that enables merchants to travel safely, and makes the pass worth using.



> And now suppose, that instead of a license to steal, the "native" bandit attends a summit, appeals to a league of nation-states, and negotiates a deal that causes the entire pass to become a recognized independent state. The once highly organized crime racket-cum-state now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable state.


So the "summit" has effectively made him a feudal landowner, with power to exact rent from the pass's users, but no responsibility to repay the government and community that make the pass useful and valuable to the merchants.  Check.



> How  can the mere existence of that *state-created piece of paper*, even if it nothing but a former bandit now issuing it, entitling him to rob the caravans, alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?


You mean, he is no longer turning over the rent of the pass to the state that secures the merchants' rights and makes the pass valuable to them by supporting the communities that create the economic opportunity for trade??  Well, that sounds like he is in effect just a landowner.  Which he is, but a feudal one who does not answer to anyone or get his possession of the pass secured for him for free.  Like the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia and pocket the rent of its oil resources.  So in that sense, he is less of a parasite than he would be as a private landowner protected and privileged by a government funded by others' taxes.



> How has the nature of the bandit's business really changed?


He is back to being a bandit/landowner, because he is no longer repaying the community that creates the value he is stealing.



> It's all legal now, but regardless whether he as a single bandit or a gang of organized bandits called a State,


That is not what a state is, and you know it.  You just always have to lie.  ALWAYS.



> he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free.


Right: because he no longer repays the value he is taking to the government and community that create it, he has reverted to being a bandit/landowner.  It's the difference between being a repo man and a car thief.



> If he divides the proceeds equally amongst his Royal Family, friends, and other closely related mountain pass community members, that will not constitute "giving back" to those who continue to be robbed.


Right, because now he is no longer repaying the value that he is taking from the merchants to the government and community that create it.

That is the stubborn, irreducible fact you always have to evade and refuse to know: the only reason the merchants want to use that pass in the first place is the economic opportunity that the peaceful and prosperous communities on each end provide, which government makes possible.

No government --> no peaceful, prosperous communities --> no economic advantage for the land user --> no land rent.

You always have to refuse to know that indisputable fact, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.



> What this really boils down to are the improvements that someone made to the pass, making it more desirable or easier to use than other passes.


No, that's just another absurd and dishonest fabrication from you.  There are no improvements to the pass.  It is just as nature provided it, and the economic opportunity that makes use of the pass worth paying for is created by the communities that live on each end of it, not the bandit/landowner/feudal lord who just extorts value from those who use it, but does not contribute to that value.  You just have to FALSELY CLAIM there are improvements in order to prevent yourself and the readers of this thread from knowing the fact that the ONLY reason the pass is worth using is the economic opportunity represented by the peaceful, prosperous communities on each end of it.



> Are those improvements what entitles the bandit/licensed-bandit/state to rents on what nature nonetheless provided for free?


No, bandits and landowners are not entitled to rents on what nature provided for free.  There are only three possible things that could entitle any entity to rents on what nature provided for free:

1. That entity *created* the rental *value* of what nature provided for free;
2. That entity makes *just compensation* to all who are deprived of their liberty to use what nature provided for free; and
3. That entity's legitimate *function* is to secure and reconcile the equal liberty rights of all to access, use, and benefit from what nature provided for free, *and it is actually doing so.*

Government and the community -- the "State," as you so tendentiously call them -- do the first.  With LVT + UIE, government does the second.  And government alone can do the third.

The private landowner, by contrast, does none of those three things.



> If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million improved passes, each with its own resident state/bandit, would the merchants' being at  liberty to choose which state/bandit robs them make the bandits'  enterprise nothing more than a competitive industry in a free market?


We're not talking about improved passes.  You just have to try to change the subject, because you have been utterly destroyed on the subject of land, and you know it.



> Do  the merchants, by using the improved pass when they know the  bandit/licensed-bandit/state is there to collect rents, "agree" to pay *for what nature provided for free* on the basis of something else offered in addition?


No, on the basis that thanks to government, the community and nature, but no thanks to the landowner, it's worth paying for access to that natural opportunity.



> Because (as we have established), paying rents on the undeveloped pass was never necessary, as that pass was not provided by any human or collection of humans.


Wrong _again_.  Paying rent for the pass that was not provided by any human or collection of humans BECAME necessary as soon as government and the community made it valuable enough to attract a greedy parasite -- bandit, landowner, whatever -- who wanted to get something for nothing by charging others for access to it.



> So we are only talking about improvements,


Lie, as proved above.



> and whether their existence blanketing an area of land constitutes a perpetual entitlement to those that produced them - public or private.


Those who produce improvements are entitled to own them.  But we are not talking about improvements.  You are just trying to change the subject to improvements because you have already realized that you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished on the subject of land.



> And even if we consider that the caravans had the option of using another pass, does the existence of improvements, regardless of the source, mean that the merchants have agreed to pay rents on those improvements, even if it can be shown that they really only wanted to use what nature provided for free, and nothing else?


Blah, blah, blah <try to change the subject> blah blah, blah...



> In other words, is any entity (state, private bandit, licensed or otherwise) morally entitled to rents (let alone a monopoly on rents) for what nature nonetheless provided for free, and strictly on the basis of opportunities or improvements, directly or indirectly provided in addition to what nature nonetheless provided for free?


See above for who can possibly have a rightful entitlement to rents on what nature provided for free.

----------


## Roy L

> Why does Eco hijack all the threads to talk about Geoism?  Why don't you start a Geoist forum?


It's only about half a dozen threads on topics to which geoism is crucially relevant, like this one, half of which were created specifically to discuss geoism.

----------


## Roy L

> Yes, hundreds of millions. The "about 80 million, total" was just the ones that were killed as a direct result of war and policy implementation. Indirectly it was many times that number, as the effects lingered through generations.  For everyone killed there were many others that eventually died as a result.


Nope.  There is no evidence whatever for such a claim.  None.



> Now that's when Absurdity itself spits its coffee in a coughing fit, unable to catch its breath for the credulity that you strain beyond the limits of the most fantastic.


All your bluster cannot alter the fact that the poverty forcibly imposed on the landless by landowning and the wars fought over the privilege of landowning (i.e., pocketing land rent) have killed billions.



> Shut up, Roy. Just, shut up already.


What an eloquent concession of defeat.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> All your bluster cannot alter the fact that the poverty forcibly imposed on the landless by landowning and the wars fought over the privilege of landowning (i.e., pocketing land rent) have killed billions.


That is very true Roy. Very true. In WWW1 millions of landless, poor Britons living In a country that had the largest and richest empire the world had ever seen, went off to fight for "King and Country".  The vast majority of them owned not one inch of the "country" they were potentially to give their lives for. Eventually millions did give their lives.

After WW1 there was no change in the system with these brave men cast back into poverty. All many did was give their lives, and lose limbs, to keep a ruling, privileged landed strata in power.  Today, in the United Kingdom, 0.3% of the population own 70% of the land. In WW1 fewer than today owned most of the land. 

In WW2 the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary was Lord Halifax. He was known as an appeaser pre WW2 wanting to talk peace terms with Germany after the fall of France. Churchill when gaining the Prime Ministers job replaced him shipping him off to do the lame job of Ambassador to the USA in Washington - most communication at the time went above his head, peer to peer in each country.

Halifax owned vast tacts of the county of Yorkshire.  Halifax wanted to keep his lucrative acres, his prime aim. He would talk peace, appease or use the lives of the poor to keep his landed wealth.


"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so." 
*– George Orwell.* 

"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few thousand families. *These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms*.  It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling houses, and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can actually farm." 
*– George Orwell.*

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Why does Eco hijack all the threads to talk about Geoism?  Why don't you start a Geoist forum?


The points in question in these threads, Geoism is the glaring answer.  Understand Geoism and what the great benefits are in relation to the topic and sub-topics discussed. There have been many thread created to discuss only Geoism.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Thank you for your answers. Now let's have some fun.  One piece at a time.




> So you agree that the landowner is effectively a thief.  Good.


No, I was only humoring you in your nonsense, plucking at your cut-and-paste turing machine web and watching you run out and do ad hoc repairs. But it was not just for the sake of seeing you do it (although that's entertaining), as will be seen.




> Remember, from the *"all-important perspective of those being robbed,"* the bandit is only taking what they are WILLING TO PAY to use the pass.


Oh, really?  Well, in your original BANDIT red herring story, you are the one who followed that all up with:




> *Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?
> 
> If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?*


Those questions were only asked rhetorically, as if it was all somehow settled.  Your latest response suggests, to me, that your answer to those questions would be that: 

a) the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, do not agree to be robbed, *because they aren't being robbed*, given that
b) "_the bandit is only taking what they are WILLING TO PAY to use the pass_". 

If the merchants are willing to pay, where is the theft? WHO, PRECISELY, ARE THE BANDITS STEALING FROM?

Even with bandits your assumption is that the bandit is only taking what the merchants are "WILLING TO PAY".  However, why put words in your mouth, when you can answer for yourself. From your original bandit story:

1) Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed? 

2) If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?

You never did answer those questions yourself, Roy.  What are your answers to each of those questions? And by all means, after giving a simple YES or NO, feel free to elaborate.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So you agree that the landowner is effectively a thief. Good.
> 			
> 		
> 
> No, I was only humoring you


George Orwell (you may had heard of him) on landowners...

*"These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms".* 
Orwell got that right OK...and so did Roy.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I am a land owner (or soon it will be all mine- it is more than 90% mine now- my final mortgage payment goes in by the end of the year).  Can you prove what I have stolen from you?  Demonstrate this loss I have imposed on society and how would you calculate the value of it?

----------


## Roy L

> I am a land owner


Surprise!



> Can you prove what I have stolen from you?


You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.



> Demonstrate this loss I have imposed on society


You are stopping others from using what government, the community and nature provide.



> and how would you calculate the value of it?


The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes.  That's what land value IS.  And that is why land is so expensive.

----------


## Roy L

> No, I was only humoring you in your nonsense, plucking at your cut-and-paste turing machine web and watching you run out and do ad hoc repairs. But it was not just for the sake of seeing you do it (although that's entertaining), as will be seen.


I see.  So it was just another dishonest little bit of evasion that allowed you to appear not to be denying self-evident fact, but subsequently claim not to have admitted it.  Par for the course. 



> Well, in your original BANDIT red herring story,


Nothing red herring about it.  It just proves you wrong, so you have to refuse to know the facts it identifies.



> you are the one who followed that all up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?
> 
> If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?
> ...


Oh, it's definitely settled.  And you know it.  Which is why you did not even try to answer those questions.



> Your latest response suggests, to me, that your answer to those questions would be that: 
> a) the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, do not agree to be robbed, *because they aren't being robbed*, given that
> b) "_the bandit is only taking what they are WILLING TO PAY to use the pass_".


No, that's just another fabrication on your part.  They are willing to pay for the advantage the bandit controls, but he is robbing them because there is no reason they should be paying HIM for it.  You know this, and you know that it is the central, crucial fact that you always have to evade, ignore, dismiss, and deny because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.  Consider the very similar case of a bandit stopping motorists on a public road and extorting $10 from them.  They might be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road, but even you are not stupid or dishonest enough to claim they aren't being robbed.  Or consider a long-established protection racketeer who charges businesses for access to the local customer base (if he is not paid, he doesn't harm the business's premises, just lets it be known in the neighborhood that no one is to patronize the business).  They are willing to pay for it (the protection racketeer's demands just come out of the land rent the businesses have to pay landowners for access to the market -- which should be a clue to you just what the landowners are being paid for), but they are definitely being robbed. 



> If the merchants are willing to pay, where is the theft?


The theft is in their being forced to pay someone who is not providing value in return, as you know perfectly well.



> WHO, PRECISELY, ARE THE BANDITS STEALING FROM?


The merchants (though notice that in the case of the protection racket, the loser is the landowner who has had *his* protection racket muscled in on).



> Even with bandits your assumption is that the bandit is only taking what the merchants are "WILLING TO PAY".


Yep.  Just like the protection racketeer's victims.  There is just no reason they should pay HIM.



> However, why put words in your mouth, when you can answer for yourself. From your original bandit story:
> 
> 1) Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed? 
> 
> 2) If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?
> 
> You never did answer those questions yourself, Roy.  What are your answers to each of those questions.


No in both cases, obviously.

Now you answer them.



> And by all means, after giving a simple YES or NO, feel free to elaborate.


What's to elaborate?  No amount of twisting, squirming and dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government and the community create land's value, and therefore should rightly be paid for it, while the landowner does not, and therefore rightly should not.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> They are willing to pay for the advantage the bandit controls, but he is robbing them because there is no reason they should be paying HIM for it.


Oh I could agree, as long you replace HIM with ANYONE.




> Consider the very similar case of a bandit stopping motorists on a public road and extorting $10 from them. They might be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road, but even you are not stupid or dishonest enough to claim they aren't being robbed.


You're referring to a policeman? Well, of course I agree. It is extortion, and they are being robbed. You said they "might" be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road -- but we wouldn't know that unless we asked them, would we.  And asking one, or some, or even most, would not be the same as asking all. 




> Or consider a long-established protection racketeer who charges businesses for access to the local customer base (if he is not paid, he doesn't harm the business's premises, just lets it be known in the neighborhood that no one is to patronize the business)


Ah, yes, licensing requirements for ordinary people to engage in commerce. A total racket. 




> They are willing to pay for it <snip circular references>, but they are definitely being robbed.


No, we have not established in EITHER of the above cases that they are "willing" (voluntarily, of their own free will, in that they would pay even if the option to not pay existed).   




> The theft is in their being forced to pay someone who is not providing value in return, as you know perfectly well.


No, Roy, that's where you have it all $#@!ed up.  The theft, *the extortion*, is in *being forced to pay*. *Period*.  Your attitude is like that of a classic racketeer, Roy.  You think it's OK to force someone to pay, so long as you (to your satisfaction only) "provide value in return".  Do you think a protection racketeer doesn't justify extortion by claiming that he is "providing value in return"? 

And what about your loopy-stupid notion that A BANDIT is only going to take what merchants are "WILLING" to pay? What the $#@! does that mean, "WILLING"?  How do you know that they are willing to pay ANYONE -- let alone HIM? Not only do you have the concept of WILLING completely twisted, you have a fantasy notion of "benevolent bandits" that don't take absolutely everything they can possibly take when the opportunity presents itself. 




> A husband and wife stop at an average hotel. The advertised price is $100 a night, and they take a room. When they go to check out the next morning, the desk clerk hands them a bill for $350, along with a list of itemized charges. The husband explodes.  
> 
> HUSBAND: All you can eat all-night buffet? We didn't eat anything here!
> CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it. 
> HUSBAND: Olympic-sized pool, day spa and massage? We didn't use the pool or go anywhere near the spa!
> CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it. 
> HUSBAND: Luxury conference center? We didn't use that either!
> CLERK: Well, sir, it was there if you wanted it.
> 
> ...


You cannot give someone something, assign your own value to it, force someone to pay, and pretend it is not extortion.  You cannot assume that since others are willing to pay a given amount for a thing, that everyone else must be "willing" to pay that same amount. That's nasty, Roy.  Stinky, icky, nasty. 




> Yep.  Just like the protection racketeer's victims.  There is just no reason they should pay HIM.


OR ANYONE ELSE (public or private). Not unless it was truly voluntary. Otherwise, there is no reason they should pay ANYONE, including the state if it behaves in the same way as a racketeer.  *States get no pass.* The state becomes the ultimate protection racket when extortion is implemented -- the idea that ANY ENTITY (public or private, state or mafia-state) provides a service, has a monopoly on that service, assigns its own values to that service, and rationalizes force used to make others to pay for that monopolized service on the basis that "*something was given in return*".  




> Now you answer them.


I did. The answer is no to both, but unlike you, my answer is consistent by extension, across the board. It is the same whether it is a private bandit or a state bandit (and no, that is not using your circular reasoning as you apply it to landownership). A bandit is a bandit, and theft is theft in both cases.  You are the only one who thinks that the state can license itself to be a bandit, and that somehow the nature of monopolistic theft, extortion and coercion become something else because it's Roy's nasty, despicable version of a state that is doing it.  Meeza hatesa your version of gubmint, Roy. 

No amount of twisting, squirming, conflating, obfuscating dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government (A SERVANT ONLY) is NOT synonymous with the private individuals that make up a community, which individuals created both the state and all private land's value. It is, therefore, those private individuals who should rightly enjoy the rents thereof, while the state does not, and therefore rightly should not, EVER behave as a bandit, under Color of Collectivist Non-Reasoning.

The fact that others simply "value" (are willing to pay for) ANYTHING, including land, does not an entitlement to others make. Not for ANYONE, public or private, singular or collective. So take your merry band of would-be LVT parasite state bandits elsewhere, Roy.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Surprise!
> 
> You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.
> 
> You are stopping others from using what government, the community and nature provide.
> 
> The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes.  That's what land value IS.  And that is why land is so expensive.


So if you have a house or apartment or business, you have no problems with me stopping by and going in at any time- otherwise you are depriving me of the right to access your property.  Otherwise, I can charge you for not letting me in. 




> You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.


There isn't any government infrasturcture on my property to deny anybody access to and I am not stopping any social services by virtue of owning land (can you give examples if I am?) .  




> and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.


Can I avoid the taxes if I leave the land as it is- no buildings, farms, or factories?  




> The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes. That's what land value IS. And that is why land is so expensive.


SO my annual tax should be the full value of my land?  A 100% tax?  That does not sound like a "simple and painless tax" as it has been described.  

Do you tax all lands?  Farms and grazing lands as well? Or do you exempt them to protect food production?   Forests and deserts, lakes and mountains? What about government controlled lands (if the tax on land is 100% then the government will end up owning most of the land- even more than the do today)?

----------


## Carson

*"Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit"*

Yes in a way but not by the populace that most people identify as the *Rich* that are not paying their taxes. 

Besides once that group was stripped of their wealth the counterfeiters would continue on their rampage of looting the planet.

What if the counterfeiters themselves became the group that had to pay their capital gains taxes like the rest of us? I'm not really sure it would pay anything off but it sure would cramp their style.

If we created something that cost a few cents and sold it for a dollar we would need to pay our taxes. Lots of honest businesses have been playing the game that way. Well what about the counterfeiters that print up a fiat note? What about the group that has printed up a bond out of thin air to trade for the notes? Should they be left out of the loop? Both parties could and should be held accountable to pay their taxes. Should they not?


Someday, if I'm ask, I'm going to have to point out taxation without representation for you. It's a real Duesy.

----------


## Roy L

> So if you have a house or apartment or business, you have no problems with me stopping by and going in at any time- otherwise you are depriving me of the right to access your property.  Otherwise, I can charge you for not letting me in.


No.  We have already been over this a dozen times.  You are wrong in two different ways: first, a house, apartment or business is not land, would not be available to you if I hadn't built (or paid someone to build) it, and IS therefore (unlike the land) rightly my property, so you have no right to go in without my permission.  Second, if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land, and you have your individual exemption (UIE) that allows you to keep *me* off some land of *your* choice, then* I've already compensated you* for not being allowed to come onto the land I'm using, so you'll be staying out, thank you very much.



> There isn't any government infrasturcture on my property to deny anybody access to


<yawn>  Then how do you get to your property?  As you know perfectly well, I did not say you were necessarily depriving others of access to government infrastructure ON your property (though many landowners do), but to infrastructure that is accessible FROM your property.

*Stop being so dishonest.*



> and I am not stopping any social services by virtue of owning land (can you give examples if I am?) .


False.  You are depriving others of the opportunity to access government services that are available FROM your property, whether it is local schools, Medicare/Medicaid, police and fire protection, or whatever.  You know this.



> Can I avoid the taxes if I leave the land as it is- no buildings, farms, or factories?


Certainly not, any more than you can avoid paying for a loaf of bread you take home from the bakery if you decide not to eat it.  You're depriving others of it even if you don't use it yourself.  I'm not sure there is any clearer way to explain that to you.



> SO my annual tax should be the full value of my land?


The full *rental* value.  You're getting confused between two different kinds of value.  The land's *exchange* value (what you think of as its "value") is the discounted capitalization of all its future after-tax rental values; so because the tax would leave no rental value in your hands, its exchange value would disappear (i.e., you would effectively pay it all at once when the tax was passed, but without actually paying any money).  You'd then just pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure.



> A 100% tax?  That does not sound like a "simple and painless tax" as it has been described.


I don't think anyone has claimed LVT would be painless for _landowners_: they would lose their privilege of pocketing other people's taxes, and the capital asset value that goes with it, and that's certainly going to hurt.  *But the amount of the tax is just the amount you would be paying if you were renting the land from an ordinary private owner.*



> Do you tax all lands?  Farms and grazing lands as well?


All lands, in principle.  Lands in use for government purposes would be listed and appraised, so governments could decide if their use was preferable to a private use.



> Or do you exempt them to protect food production?


Applying LVT to farm and grazing land will INCREASE food production and REDUCE food prices by reducing speculative landholding and increasing allocative efficiency.  You still haven't understood that LVT is *TOTALLY UNLIKE OTHER TAXES* because it makes the economy fairer and more efficient, not less fair and less efficient.



> Forests and deserts, lakes and mountains?


Forests are valuable and would likely be taxed; deserts, lakes and mountains usually have little or no rental value, and would not be taxed unless they did.



> What about government controlled lands (if the tax on land is 100% then the government will end up owning most of the land- even more than the do today)?


Nope.  Government won't want any more land than it needs for its own purposes, because that would just reduce revenue.  You still haven't understood that LVT *ALIGNS GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.*

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Applying LVT to farm and grazing land will INCREASE food production and REDUCE food prices by reducing speculative landholding and increasing allocative efficiency. You still haven't understood that LVT is TOTALLY UNLIKE OTHER TAXES because it makes the economy fairer and more efficient, not less fair and less efficient.


Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Hood-Tax/page3 I assumed that we kept the budget the same size it is today.  If we include all farmlands and grazing lands and urban areas in our taxable base,  the LVT on an acre of land would be $3,485.  Meanwhile, the average value of farmland in the country is $2,140 an acre.  Now you are adding a tax which is going to increase his costs by $3,485 a year more than he currently pays for his expenses. 50% more than the land itself is worth in this example. 

But we can ignore the projected numbers and simply look at what ANY increase in taxes will have on farming and food production and food prices. 

So what effect would this tax have on a farmer?   Two things will happen.  One- fewer people will be able to afford to farm- the margins are low and some of them will be forced to sell. It will also discourage others from becoming farmers because the costs of becoming one will be higher.  Unless they are able to raise the prices of food enough to pay for the taxes. That is not going to happen since there is a lot of competition in producing food- not only from farmers in this country but farmers in other countries as well.   The tax will give a massive advantage to foreign growers- a bid subsidy to them since they are not facing this tax. And the selling off of farmland will reduce the food supply and raise the prices of foods.  Foreign cheaper food floods the market at prices below what the US can produce them at- more US farms fail. 

Can you explain to me just how this is supposed to INCREASE food production when it will actually have the opposite effect? You can't because it does not happen that way.  Higher taxes on anything leads to increased production?   Only in a fantasy world- not in reality. Otherwise an infinity tax would lead to infinite productivity if raising taxes increases production. 

(as a further number I calculated that if you exempt farming and grazing lands the tax jumps to over $60,000 an acre per year which is 50% higher than the before tax median income in the country).   

Taxes do not increase efficiency. They discourage activities.  If you want to discourage something, put a tax on it- that encourages people to do it less.  Want people to smoke less? Raise the taxes on cigarettes.   Taxing land for food production (or whatever) discourages producing more food.  It increases the cost of that activity and it will also increase the cost of food.

If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it.  That will leave it to two entities- those with lots of money and the government- owning most of the land.  If you want the average person to own more land and keep it out of "exploiters" hands (those who would use it to their own maximum gain- not "society's benefit"),  taxing is the wrong direction to take. Unless you believe those two groups will act in totally altruistic manners.  They will persue their own interests.

----------


## Cowlesy

Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805, and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land...


Such a deprivation is not grounds for an entitlement to anyone, singular or collective. 

In the absence of land monopolies, public or private, _everyone is justly deprived_ of their liberty to use other people's land (yes I'm begging that question deliberately), with no rents due or owing. 




> I did not say you were necessarily depriving others of access to government infrastructure ON your property (though many landowners do), but to infrastructure that is accessible FROM your property.


All infrastructure, including roads and other common lands, is common property, and therefore not for direct profit, public or private. The state is a SERVANT of the infrastructure it creates-at-someone-else's-expense. Thus, the state is not in the "business" of providing infrastructure. Stop referring to the state as if it was a going for-profit concern. 




> You are depriving others of the opportunity to access government services that are available FROM your property, whether it is local schools, Medicare/Medicaid, police and fire protection, or whatever.


Yes, isn't it sad that nobody can order a pizza for delivery using your home address, and must use their own address instead.  And don't conflate police and fire protection with local schools and other state monopolized, highly value distorted monstrosities, as if they were on par with one another. Your leftist statist colors are showing. 

*HALF-BAKED METAPHOR ALERT:*




> Certainly not, any more than you can avoid paying for a loaf of bread you take home from the bakery if you decide not to eat it.  You're depriving others of it even if you don't use it yourself.


The state is not an LVT Land Rental Bakery Store, much less one that has ALL LAND on its "shelf". 




> The full *rental* value.


...as in, everybody is now a renter, and the state is the landlord.




> You'd then just pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure.


Under LVT, you'd then just pay the state the market appraised rent for secure conditional exclusive tenure. 

There, fixed your bed of roses for you. You left out the reality of the thorns. 




> I don't think anyone has claimed LVT would be painless for _landowners_: they would lose their privilege of pocketing other people's taxes...


Flagrant, dishonest question begging. Land rents are not "other people's taxes".  We're not reasoning this through with your jilted mindset, Roy.




> *But the amount of the tax is just the amount you would be paying if you were renting the land from an ordinary private owner.*


...and the very thing LVT proponents rail against as so much evil. But it suddenly becomes good when the state is doing it (read=tickles the wealth-redistribution sensibilities of geocommunists).  Forget that if everyone was a landowner, the amount of rent they would be paying to _an ordinary private owner_ (namely, themselves) would be *ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA*.  How much better is that? 




> Government won't want any more land than it needs for its own purposes, because that would just reduce revenue.


Yeah, ignore things like zoning laws and land withheld from usage such that artificial scarcity drives up values. Ignore the micro-economics of supply and demand, and how the market really works. LVT is magically immune to all of that, as it even has its own laws of economics (geonomics, doncha know), which operates in a completely different realm.




> You still haven't understood that LVT *ALIGNS GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.*


That is like saying that Michael Vick was only aligning his interests with those of the dogs in his fighting pits.  After all, the dogs were willing to fight, and those betting on the doges wanted them to fight.  And no matter which dogs wins, the state gets its pound of flesh from the victor. And the fact that victors will exists can serve as proof positive of its swimming success. 

In Roy's fantasy regime, government's methodologies under LVT will mimic private market methodologies, as the state now gets to play the role of capitalist (albeit a completely monopolistic one).  Once the state "corners the market on land rents", and becomes a for-profit landlord with a monopoly on those rents *for an entire factor of production*, the stage will be set for a nice game of _Let's You And Them Fight_, which ensures that everything is equitable and fair (to the state and the victors).

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Originally Posted by Roy L  
> ...if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land...
> 			
> 		
> 
> Such a deprivation is not grounds for an entitlement to anyone, singular or collective.


What the hell are you babbling about? Did your friend Norman tell you to write that?  _We all own the land_.  Look up Sovereignty. That means we can all wander over it.  But if someone fences off land for essential private living needs or business, that deprives the rest of us to walk on that land. So title (as set of rights) is issued for land to prevent others walking on that land.  Roy clearly and simply states that if you deprive us all of walking on *our* land you quite rightly must pay the rest of us for that privilege.  LVT is the perfect mechanism for that.

Roy's point of paying to occupy land is one one point of the justification of LVT. Another is *reclaiming community created wealth that soaked into the land crystallizing as land values.*

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805, and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.


And quite right! You a have the right to occupy the land. Not because of your ancestors holding it for that period, which is totally irrelevant to the current occupation and use of the land.

By the way, your ancestors did legally steal the land from its previous occupiers in an invasion by the the United States into the adjacent lands to the west.  But that does not mean the land should be taken from you today.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost.


You must stop making things up.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If we created something that cost a few cents and sold it for a dollar we would need to pay our taxes. Lots of honest businesses have been playing the game that way.


 _The current economic system is flawed_. We have had TWO world-wide crashes within 80 years of each other. It would have been sooner only for WW2. There are countless booms & busts between which greatly affect the economy and people's lives. The system is prone to causing wars.

The fact that the current economic system is flawed is beyond doubt as its record proves. All the most powerful computers in the world could not prevent the last crash. The system is prone to *systemic failure*. Most think it is a matter of more control on the financial sector that will prevent the problem from reoccurring. That is bunkum. The system needs replacing. 

The perfect system that will rectify the inherent problems of the current flawed system is Geonomics. The current business and land laws stay the same. Common wealth is used to pay for community services leaving private wealth in private hands untouched. Production is not discouraged but encouraged. The evil speculation is naturally harnessed preventing booms and busts and world-wide crashes.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I am a land owner (or soon it will be all mine- it is more than 90% mine now- my final mortgage payment goes in by the end of the year).  Can you prove what I have stolen from you?  Demonstrate this loss I have imposed on society and how would you calculate the value of it?


You will find that the title of the land is "yours" as soon as you sign the mortgage documents NOT on the final payment. The mortgage provider cannot walk onto your land or into your house at any time.

Say the value of the land you bought when you took up the mortgage was $100,000. Now it is worth $400,000.  That is an unearned gain of $300,000.  Where did this $300,000 in value come from? The sky? mmm, no. By you painting the window frames of the house?  mmmm, no.  

*The increased $300,000 value was created by economic community activity which soaked into the land crystallizing as land values.*  That is economic fact. The landowner, you, did not make the land values. Currently this common wealth, which you, did NOT create is appropriated by you. That is legalized theft.  *Freeloading*

----------


## Roy L

> Oh I could agree, as long you replace HIM with ANYONE.


Unfortunately, that's only an option if no one can stop anyone else from using it.  But they can.  So at this point, you are just farting fairy dust.



> You're referring to a policeman?


No, I'm not, and you know it, so STOP LYING.  There is no reason to think a policeman would stop motorists and extort $10 from them, any more than a fireman, clergyman, milkman or frogman, so you are just telling cretinous lies again to evade the issue.

As you know, but are lying about, I'm referring to a bandit: a filthy, greedy, evil little parasite who thinks he can rob people and get away with it, like a landowner.

SO ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION INSTEAD OF DISHONESTLY TRYING TO TWIST AND WEASEL AND SLIME YOUR WAY OUT OF IT.

God, your stupid, filthy, despicable dishonesty is a waste of time and brain energy.

YOU KNOW that trying to pretend I was referring to a policeman when you know very well I wasn't is DISHONEST.  YOU _KNOW_ THAT.  Why can't you understand that when you never have any way to defend your views but by dishonesty, it can only be because those views are FALSE and EVIL?



> Well, of course I agree. It is extortion, and they are being robbed.


Answer the question I posed, not the one you so dishonestly made up and substituted for it.

If a policeman has no authority to charge the motorists tolls, then yes, of course they are being robbed because he is then acting as a bandit, not a policeman -- as you know perfectly well, but have dishonestly chosen to pretend not to know.  The situation is quite different, however, if the policeman is acting under the authority of the community that PROVIDED the road.  Then he has every right to stop them and require a toll of $10, because the community that employs him is providing the road.  YOU KNOW THIS.  You have merely realized that you have to evade it, because it proves your beliefs are *false* and *EVIL*.



> You said they "might" be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road -- but we wouldn't know that unless we asked them, would we.  And asking one, or some, or even most, would not be the same as asking all.


What on earth are you on about?  Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant?



> Ah, yes, licensing requirements for ordinary people to engage in commerce. A total racket.


Yes, it is, but you are again just baldly lying about what I plainly wrote, which specifically concerned a protection racket that used intimidation of customers -- i.e., control of access to the market, such as a landowner also uses to extort unearned wealth -- to extort money from businesses.

Why can't you understand that when you never have any way to defend your views but by dishonesty, it can only be because those views are FALSE and EVIL?



> No, we have not established in EITHER of the above cases that they are "willing" (voluntarily, of their own free will, in that they would pay even if the option to not pay existed).


Now you are flatly lying about what it means to be "willing to pay" for something.  It does not mean one would pay even if the option not to pay for what one took existed.  That is just your absurd and dishonest fabrication.  It means one willingly pays rather than do without the benefit received in exchange for the payment.

YOU KNOW THIS.  YOU JUST DECIDED DELIBERATELY TO LIE ABOUT IT.



> No, Roy, that's where you have it all $#@!ed up.


<yawn>  I predict that you will now tell another absurd lie:



> The theft, *the extortion*, is in *being forced to pay*. *Period*.


??  HUH?  So being forced to pay for a restaurant meal you just ordered *and ate* is "theft" and "extortion"?  Really, Steven?  *REALLY????*  Being forced to pay for water you have used from the municipal water supply is "theft" and "extortion"?  REALLY???

No.  It is not.  AND YOU KNOW IT.

YOU KNOW that being forced to pay for something YOU DELIBERATELY TOOK from someone else is NOT theft or extortion.  You know it, but you deliberately decided to LIE about it.

You just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.



> Your attitude is like that of a classic racketeer, Roy.


No, that is just another absurd lie from you.  I have proved it is the *landowner* who functions *EXACTLY* as a racketeer, charging his victims for benefits someone else provides.



> You think it's OK to force someone to pay, so long as you (to your satisfaction only) "provide value in return".


Lie.  The market decides value, not me.  You again just deliberately lied about what I have plainly written MANY TIMES.



> Do you think a protection racketeer doesn't justify extortion by claiming that he is "providing value in return"?


I doubt it very much; and even if he does, he doesn't claim it seriously.  He knows he is lying if he makes that claim because he knows that he in fact ISN'T providing any value, because HIS VICTIMS ARE WORSE OFF for the transaction, NOT BETTER OFF.

YOU KNOW THIS.



> And what about your loopy-stupid notion that A BANDIT is only going to take what merchants are "WILLING" to pay? What the $#@! does that mean, "WILLING"?


Oh, get a freakin' dictionary, and learn how to use it.  Your relentless refusal to understand plain English in order to avoid knowing the facts that ordinary English words are used to identify is excruciatingly dishonest and tiresome.



> How do you know that they are willing to pay ANYONE -- let alone HIM?


Because they keep using the pass.  Duh.  And the scenario is not "loopy-stupid" at all: *IT IS EXACTLY HOW REAL-LIFE PROTECTION RACKETS WORK.*  The racketeer estimates how much a given business can afford to pay on a regular basis, and then demands it as a rent for leaving the business alone.  He doesn't want to drive his victims out of business -- kill the geese that lay the golden eggs -- any more than the landowner does.  So he takes only what they are willing to pay to stay in business.



> Not only do you have the concept of WILLING completely twisted,


No, I do not.  It is *you* who have made up a false and absurd notion of what it means to be "willing to pay" for something.  According to your absurd lie, someone who goes shopping at the grocery store is not willing to pay for what they take home, because they would have preferred to get it for free.  It's just a flat-out, absurd lie about the meaning of ordinary English words.



> you have a fantasy notion of "benevolent bandits" that don't take absolutely everything they can possibly take when the opportunity presents itself.


It's no fantasy, and they certainly aren't benevolent.  This bandit is just smarter than your claimed bandit.  He is operating a protection racket, like a landowner.  Much easier, more reliable and profitable.  That is the point of the hypothetical example, which you of course have to contrive some means to evade.



> You cannot give someone something, assign your own value to it, force someone to pay, and pretend it is not extortion.


And...?  How is that, or your little hotel story, relevant to anything I have said?  I am not assigning value to anything.  The market is.  I am not giving anyone anything and then forcing them to pay for it, they are *taking* it, and then *refusing* to pay for it.



> You cannot assume that since others are willing to pay a given amount for a thing, that everyone else must be "willing" to pay that same amount.


I have neither made nor implied any such assumption, and you know it.  So you're again reliant on strawman lies.

But when someone *takes* a thing, they'd better be willing to either pay for it or give it back.



> That's nasty, Roy.  Stinky, icky, nasty.


That's lying, Steven.  Stinky, icky, nasty.  Disgraceful.  Dishonest.  Despicable.

EVIL.



> OR ANYONE ELSE (public or private).


Wrong _again_.  As soon as someone can gain control of an advantageous natural opportunity (i.e., forcibly remove others' liberty to use it, as the bandit or landowner does in the pass), and someone else wants to use it, the one who controls it can make them pay him for doing nothing: i.e., he has a rent seeking privilege.  The only way to prevent this extortion of payment is not to allow exclusive control, and treat the opportunity as a common resource available to all.  But absence of administrative control can lead to a tragedy of the commons.  As a result, given the need to control access to the opportunity, the only possible fair way to allocate exclusive access to that opportunity is to require the one who gets it justly to compensate _all_ whom he deprives of it, not just the one who gained control of it.  

The merchants are paying the landowner not to deprive them of the exact same market access they're paying the protection racketeer not to deprive them of.  That is very much the point.



> Not unless it was truly voluntary.


Yes, well, we know how you lied about what "willing to pay" means, so let's see what you can do to the meaning of "truly voluntary."



> Otherwise, there is no reason they should pay ANYONE, including the state if it behaves in the same way as a racketeer.


But when the state or government does NOT act as a racketeer but as the guardian of its citizens' rights, they SHOULD pay the state, for three distinct and individually sufficient reasons, as I demonstrated in my previous message:

1. It created the rental value of what nature provided for free;
2. It makes just compensation to all who are deprived of their liberty to use what nature provided for free; and
3. Its legitimate function is to secure and reconcile the equal liberty rights of all to access, use, and benefit from what nature provided for free, and it is actually doing so.



> *States get no pass.*


Yes, they most certainly do, because it is their FUNCTION AND DUTY to secure and reconcile the EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL to access natural opportunities, as explained above.  



> The state becomes the ultimate protection racket when extortion is implemented


A voluntary, value-for-value-transaction like LVT is not extortion, so stop lying.



> -- the idea that ANY ENTITY (public or private, state or mafia-state) provides a service, has a monopoly on that service, assigns its own values to that service,


The market assigns value, not the state.  You just ALWAYS have to lie about that.



> and rationalizes force used to make others to pay for that monopolized service on the basis that "*something was given in return*".


Strawman.  What is given in return is very specific: access to the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities government and the community provide, including exclusive, secure tenure to the physical qualities nature provides.



> I did.


No, you just tried to change the subject.



> The answer is no to both, but unlike you, my answer is consistent by extension, across the board.


No.  My answer is consistent, yours is merely an attempt to beg the question by defining the state as a bandit.



> It is the same whether it is a private bandit or a state bandit


Blatant question begging fallacy.  You have given no answer for the relevant case when the state is not a bandit.



> (and no, that is not using your circular reasoning as you apply it to landownership).


You constantly claim my reasoning is circular, but have never offered an explanation of how it is circular (hint: it isn't).



> A bandit is a bandit, and theft is theft in both cases.


But the _state_ is _not_ a bandit.  That's just another absurdity intended to enable atrocities.



> You are the only one who thinks that the state can license itself to be a bandit,


Absurdity intended to enable atrocity.  Calling the state a bandit is just your infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" mantra.  The state does not "license itself to be a bandit."  It obtains its just powers from the consent of the governed, to whom it is accountable.

YOUR claim, however, is that the LANDOWNER can license himself to be a bandit, and be accountable to no one.  Sorry, no.



> and that somehow the nature of monopolistic theft,


Exaction of land rent is always inherently monopolistic.  It is _theft_ when done by private landowners who did not create the value they are taking.



> extortion and coercion become something else because it's Roy's nasty, despicable version of a state that is doing it.


I realize you think a government that secures and reconciles people's equal rights to liberty and justice by implementing voluntary, value-for-value transactions in place of coercive landowner extortion and parasitism is nasty and despicable.



> Meeza hatesa your version of gubmint, Roy.


You mainly hatesa liberty, justice and truth.



> No amount of twisting, squirming, conflating, obfuscating dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government (A SERVANT ONLY) is NOT synonymous with the private individuals that make up a community,


I've never said or implied that it was -- indeed, I've stated that it's not -- so you are again just baldly lying about what I have plainly written.



> which individuals created both the state and all private land's value.


No, that's just a bald collectivist fabrication.  Land value comes mainly from the services and infrastructure government provides (see the Henry George Theorem), which are by definition NOT contributed by any undifferentiated collective of private individuals but by *government* employees/contractors.  



> It is, therefore, those private individuals who should rightly enjoy the rents thereof,


??? ROTFL!!!  Ah, no.  You are just spewing blatant COLLECTIVIST fallacies of composition and division.  The individuals who create land value are producers.  They are therefore not at all the same private individuals who would enjoy the land rents: landowners.  You merely committed the same COLLECTIVIST logical fallacies Karl Marx committed when he claimed that because "the workers" _collectively_ produced the capital goods in a factory, "the workers" were _collectively_ entitled to the factory's profits, ignoring the fact that they weren't the SAME workers.  Likewise, you are committing the _collectivist_ fallacy of ignoring the fact that the individuals who create land value by their productive efforts and investments are by no means the same individuals who own the land and thus get to pocket the resulting value.  



> while the state does not, and therefore rightly should not, EVER behave as a bandit,


It's merely your false, absurd and unsupported claim that the state is or behaves as a bandit.



> under Color of Collectivist Non-Reasoning.


BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

See YOUR OWN Collectivist Non-Reasoning, above.

You are so done.



> The fact that others simply "value" (are willing to pay for) ANYTHING, including land, does not an entitlement to others make.


Yes, it _does_.  Because land was already there, with no help from anyone, and all would otherwise be at liberty to use it, others' willingness to pay for land entitles those who are deprived of it to just compensation for the removal of their liberty to use it.  Anything less is robbery and enslavement.



> Not for ANYONE, public or private, singular or collective.


Refuted above.  You can't just take people's rights to liberty from them and not make just compensation.  That's blatant robbery and enslavement.



> So take your merry band of would-be LVT parasite state bandits elsewhere, Roy.


It is the private landowner who is the pure parasite and bandit, as already proved by your inability to answer The Question:

*"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"*

----------


## Roy L

> Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805,


You think your ancestors having stolen it from the aboriginal population gives you a valid title to it.  Fascinating.



> and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie


You are a parasite, you like it, so you intend to go on being a parasite -- and you are aware that it is owning land that enables you to be a parasite.  Simple.



> to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.


We're not Marxists.  The first thing you learn when you decide to oppose recovery of the publicly created rent of land for public purposes and benefit is that you have to lie.  Looks like you've made a good start.

----------


## Roy L

> Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Hood-Tax/page3


I already refuted your idiotic numbers here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4620708




> I assumed that we kept the budget the same size it is today.  If we include all farmlands and grazing lands and urban areas in our taxable base,  the LVT on an acre of land would be $3,485.  Meanwhile, the average value of farmland in the country is $2,140 an acre.


What part of "VALUE, NOT AREA" are you having trouble understanding?



> Now you are adding a tax which is going to increase his costs by $3,485 a year more than he currently pays for his expenses. 50% more than the land itself is worth in this example.


Utter nonsense.



> But we can ignore the projected numbers and simply look at what ANY increase in taxes will have on farming and food production and food prices.


Or rather you could, if you knew any economics...



> So what effect would this tax have on a farmer?   Two things will happen.  One- fewer people will be able to afford to farm- the margins are low and some of them will be forced to sell.


Inefficient producers will be forced to sell.... to more efficient ones.  That is a GOOD thing.



> It will also discourage others from becoming farmers because the costs of becoming one will be higher.


Nope.  FAR lower, as they will be able to acquire good, fertile land at no up-front cost.



> Unless they are able to raise the prices of food enough to pay for the taxes.


Please read my previous refutation of this silly garbage.  The url is above.



> That is not going to happen since there is a lot of competition in producing food- not only from farmers in this country but farmers in other countries as well.   The tax will give a massive advantage to foreign growers- a bid subsidy to them since they are not facing this tax. And the selling off of farmland will reduce the food supply and raise the prices of foods.  Foreign cheaper food floods the market at prices below what the US can produce them at- more US farms fail.


More silly garbage.  LVT cannot be passed on to consumers, employees, or anyone else.  



> Can you explain to me just how this is supposed to INCREASE food production when it will actually have the opposite effect?


It won't have the opposite effect.  It will increase food production by making it uneconomic to hold land out of production or to produce inefficiently on it.



> You can't because it does not happen that way.


I just did.



> Higher taxes on anything leads to increased production?


Depends on what the tax is levied on.  A tax on anything in fixed supply, like land, will increase production because the owners won't want to lose money to the tax.



> Only in a fantasy world- not in reality.


Yes, in reality.



> Otherwise an infinity tax would lead to infinite productivity if raising taxes increases production.


Only raising SOME kinds of taxes raises production, and there is a limit to how high they can go before they start reducing production. 



> Taxes do not increase efficiency.


A tax on a factor in fixed supply does.



> They discourage activities.


Most do.  But not LVT.  This is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years and is not disputed by any competent economist.



> If you want to discourage something, put a tax on it- that encourages people to do it less.


We want people to own land less.



> Want people to smoke less? Raise the taxes on cigarettes.   Taxing land for food production (or whatever) discourages producing more food.  It increases the cost of that activity and it will also increase the cost of food.


The tax is not on producing food, it is on OWNING LAND.



> If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it.


That will discourage everyone from buying it, which is the general idea.



> That will leave it to two entities- those with lots of money and the government- owning most of the land.


If the people with lots of money want to have less money, buying land in a LVT system would be a good way to do it.



> If you want the average person to own more land and keep it out of "exploiters" hands (those who would use it to their own maximum gain- not "society's benefit"),  taxing is the wrong direction to take.


Taxing land will actually lead to more average people owning land, as it would be free to buy.



> Unless you believe those two groups will act in totally altruistic manners.  They will persue their own interests.


That is what we are counting on.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Nope. FAR lower, as they will be able to acquire good, fertile land at no up-front cost.


Even if the price of aquiring land goes down (due to lower demand since fewer people can pay the taxes on it) the LVT adds considerably to the annual cost of running a farm or business. 




> The tax is not on producing food, it is on OWNING LAND.


That is true but the cost of the land is part of the costs of producing the food.  The farmer has to able to sell his food at a price he can pay his expenses including any taxes like LVT otherwise he will not farm (or produce some other good).  Thus if his costs go up, he has to raise prices to cover it or quit farming. 




> More silly garbage. LVT cannot be passed on to consumers, employees, or anyone else.


See my above statement. If it cannot be passed along, the person being taxed closes their business because they cannot make enough money to cover their costs. 




> Only raising SOME kinds of taxes raises production, and there is a limit to how high they can go before they start reducing production.


Can you provide examples?  (LVT is not one but there aren't any other ones either so this is not unique to LVT- unless the tax is on the competition which gives one producer an advantage over another which is another way of saying that if one person is taxed and one isn't the one not taxed has an advantage over the taxed one and can price them out of business). 

And then you end with completely contradicting statements.  More people will own land.  Fewer people will own land. 



> *If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it.* 
> *That will discourage everyone from buying it*, which is the general idea.





> Taxing land *will actually lead to more average people owning land*, as it would be free to buy.


And you have not explained how higher taxes leads to higher productivity and lower prices (the whole gist of this argument here). 

You should try to take an introduction to Economics course.  It may help you if you are serious about learing this topic.

----------


## awake

1. How do you stop the LVT assessors, who must hold a monopoly of assessment and collection, from raising the assessments for their own selfish political interests? 

2. Governemnts are by thier nature unable to calculate and budget properly. They constantly waste tax revenue thanks to the "socialist calculation problem". Whats to stop them from continually raising the LVT and adding misc. additions like environmental fees on top of the LVT when the government is blowing out deficits? 

3. Where is the great check and balance that would prevent your LVT funded government from expropriating all incomes and wealth from the use of land? 

4. What is the fail safe to stop the inevitable mountains of regulations, fees and taxes under other names from being levied by the LVT assessors?

5. What is to stop certain LVT payers from lobbing the LVT funded monopolists to spend money to improve their property at the expense of other LVT payers? In exchange for votes of course...

Monopoly is something which brings down your whole system. Which is the very problem of the current system.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> LVT cannot be passed on to consumers, employees, or anyone else.


Yeah, that's just one of the magical properties of LVT, I guess, as the money required to pay the tax will magically materialize strictly out of landowner thin air only.  If the landowner tries to pass that tax along to others, it will be like the Witch of the West reaching for the ruby slippers after a house falls on her sister. I am told that the resulting magic shock will make a sound that you won't want to hear twiced. 

*ROY'S MISAPPREHENSION OR OUTRIGHT DECEPTION*

Unlike Roy, what most geocommunists are really saying (in even their deceptively forked and slippery reasoning) is that the annual rental value (and therefore cost in terms of LVT levied) does not inure directly to the benefit (is not part of the equity of) the landowner. Those land rents go to another entity instead, called "the state". Because LVT is presumably applied proportionately to all land, _it is not that LVT cannot be passed onto tenants or anyone else_; it is only that LVT cannot be passed along *in the form of higher rents*_, relative only to a producer of similar goods on less valuable land within that same regime_. This is based on a number of assumptions, one being that the tenant is already paying full market value for the rents in what is assumed to be a perfectly competitive market. 

Consider this passage from a prominent geocommunist site:




> *IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS ON IN HIGHER PRICES, LOWER WAGES OR HIGHER RENTS. SOURCE* 
> Competition makes it *impossible* for a business producing goods on a valuable site *to charge more* per item *than one producing similar goods on less valuable land* - after all, producers and traders at different locations are paying different rents to landlords now, yet like goods generally sell for much the same price and employers pay their workers comparable wages. The tax cannot be passed on *to a tenant who is already paying the full market rent*.


_"...impossible...to charge more...than one producing similar goods on less valuable land..."_ 

Unlike Roy, most geofascists are not claiming that LVT _"cannot be passed onto consumers"_ (_period_), as they are "already paying the full market rent". That would indeed be disingenuous fantasy rubbish born of economics ignorance or outright deception.  _ALL COSTS are ultimately born by end users_, even if that "end user" ends up being a party that bore a cost, but was unable to pass it along (e.g., as a finished good).  The last one to pay is, by definition, the "end user", and is where the buck always stops. Thus, the only thing that "cannot be passed on" is a higher charge that results in additional profit on the rents. 

LVT proponents see prices charged by landowners with improvements as not capturing so-called "_externalities_" associated with collectivized "public goods" which contribute to land having market value in the first place. In other words, the landowner is seen as benefiting from land value that he did not create or produce. LVT is in place for the sole purpose of "capturing" that value (taking the land rents portion of what the landowner _receives from the end user_). 

Terms like "higher" or "charge more" are the qualifiers used by most geoists, who are at least honest enough to include them, even as a fact-obfuscating verbal sleight of hand. The _implication_, to the uncritically thinking, is that such costs cannot be passed along at all, when that is not what is claimed. But it is that very qualifier that Roy omits altogether, as he explicitly and falsely states that LVT "_cannot be passed along to end users_" (period). 

The question is not whether LVT is "passed along", but rather whether it can be passed along in the form of "higher rents", which makes it a question of EQUITY OWNERSHIP, or who benefits from costs which are passed along and distributed throughout the supply chain. Thus, the annual rental value of land, which under an LVT regime comes as a levy on the rental value of the factor of production called land, is no longer _free_ to the titleholder of the land, any more than it does the end user that bears all costs. All that the [relatively] "honest" geoists are really claiming is that this cost of production (which will always be born by the end user, whomever that may be), will no longer inure to the direct benefit of the landowner.




> A tax on anything in fixed supply, like land, will increase production because the owners won't want to lose money to the tax.


Actually, it will only maintain the treadmill of the needless production requirement on the parts of people who will be forced perpetually to stay ahead of the wealth that is lost and siphoned away from them by a tax that is always passed along to end users. That means that the very "community" that provided the amenities and economic activity that gave land its value in the first place foots the bill twice - first, through the economic activity they paid for, which increased land rents in the first place, and then again as a charge by the state to landowners, which are then passed onto the end users in the community as an additional cost of existence for what they, as a collectivized "community" were said to provide.  

Under LVT, land is a factor of production (input leading to a finished good) that is monopolistically owned "administered for a fee on behalf of everyone to whom it is said to belong to in the community", and on whose behalf it is rented out -- for a fee -- by the state.  You are only paying for the use of what geocommunists like Roy claim that nature, government and the community "provides".  Thus, land is treated in the economic sense as an unfinished good, or input to production, which belongs to the taxing jurisdiction (the state), on the auspices of _administration-for-profit_ on behalf of a nebulous, socialized incorporated collective called "the community". 

The value of land (the annual rental value, as appraised by the state) is based on a number of parties that compete for a demonstrated willingness to pay for its usage.  That is on the over-simplified macro-economic demand side of the equation. On the supply side, this value is attributed to a hodgepodge kitchen-sink admixture of "what nature, government and community provide", which, if broken down, would include Direct Labor, Direct Materials (the land itself, which is free to, but belongs to, the state/community), Overhead, and Carrying Costs.  All of this results in an Overhead variable to the landowner, who is not necessarily the *end user* who bears all the costs, regardless who benefited throughout the supply chain. 

Thus, land, as a raw material with inputs of its own (under the LVT paradigm of nature, government and community) that give it value _as an unfinished good with a rental fee attached_, is nothing more than a _cost of production_. It is _Overhead_ which affects landowner equity. Geofascists like Roy claim that it is, in part, for infrastructure and economic advantages that have already presumably been paid for. But that is only in the sense that land is treated as something akin to that which might be found on a bakery store shelf.  It is ultimately "paid for" by the end user only. 

As the geocommunist site linked to above says, *"Land (unlike goods and services) has no cost of production."* That is true in the case of raw land, but while there may be no _cost of production_, that does not mean that land cannot represent a cost, as the very existence of LVT proves.  SOMETHING is being charged for -- something other than land, which is related and tied to its rental value, is said to be "produced". Nature might have "provided" raw land at no cost, and without production by anyone, individually or collectively, but "government" under an LVT regime does not provide ANYTHING without a cost. 

Thus (from the same site), "In reality land acquires a scarcity value owing to the competing needs of the community for living, working and leisure space. Thus_ land value owes nothing to individual effort and everything to the community at large_."

And by that nebulous thing called "the community at large", they are socialistically conflating government infrastructure along with the private economic activities and amenities that give private entities the ability and willingness to pay for exclusive use of land. 




> We want people to own land less...[LVT] will discourage everyone from buying it, which is the general idea.


Ah, what a confession from a would-be society-manipulating geocommunist.  Would that all of them would state that as their fundamental premise, before launching into their Geocommunist Manifesto.




> Taxing land will actually lead to more average people owning land, as it would be free to buy.


Hardly "free to buy". It would be cheaper to buy, but only because it is most _definitely not_ "free to own".  Under a "propertarian" regime, land can be bought and actually owned.  Under an LVT regime, land can never be bought. "Landownership" under LVT is no different, in effect, than taking out an *interest-only variable rate loan*.  AKA - you PAY FOREVER, BUT NEVER OWN.

----------


## Roy L

> Even if the price of aquiring land goes down (due to lower demand since fewer people can pay the taxes on it) the LVT adds considerably to the annual cost of running a farm or business.


No, it does not.  LVT adds nothing to the annual cost of running a farm or business, because it is exactly the same whether any farm or business is run on the land or not.  And by replacing unfair and harmful taxes, it REDUCES the cost of running a farm or business.  The only "activity" it increases the cost of is owning land.  But owning land doesn't produce any food.

GET IT?



> That is true but the cost of the land is part of the costs of producing the food.


No, it isn't.  As Ricardo showed 200 years ago, the cost of land is the payment for an economic advantage.  It has *no effect* on the price of food, which is determined by supply and demand, and is the same for farmers who pay the most rent as for those who pay no rent.



> The farmer has to able to sell his food at a price he can pay his expenses including any taxes like LVT otherwise he will not farm (or produce some other good).  Thus if his costs go up, he has to raise prices to cover it or quit farming.


But LVT makes his costs go *down*, not up, because it reduces the acquisition cost of land and replaces taxes that increase his costs.  The producer no longer has to pay for government twice.



> See my above statement.


Refuted.



> If it cannot be passed along, the person being taxed closes their business because they cannot make enough money to cover their costs.


False.  Consider two farmers farming the same amount and quality of land.  One owns the land he farms, the other rents it.  They are both selling their crops at the same price.  They are both equally efficient.  They both use the same production methods.  Because the owner/farmer owns the land, he is pocketing the land rent as well as the profit from farming, so his income is maybe triple the renting farmer's income.  Now introduce LVT.  The renting farmer is completely unaffected, as he now just pays the exact same rent to the government that he formerly paid to the landowner.  His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc.  The farmer who owns his land is not happy because now he only makes as much money as the renting farmer, but there is no reason for him to close his business or go bankrupt: he can't get back his unearned income by giving up his earned income.  He just no longer enjoys the unfair advantage he had over the renting farmer through owning the land.



> Can you provide examples?


See above.



> (LVT is not one


Yes, it is.



> but there aren't any other ones either


Wrong.  Consider a head tax.



> so this is not unique to LVT- unless the tax is on the competition which gives one producer an advantage over another which is another way of saying that if one person is taxed and one isn't the one not taxed has an advantage over the taxed one and can price them out of business).


You don't understand the effect of fixed supply.



> And then you end with completely contradicting statements.  More people will own land.  Fewer people will own land.


Wrong.  More people will own land BECAUSE people will not WANT to own it so much.  That will make it affordable for people who can't afford it now.  



> And you have not explained how higher taxes leads to higher productivity and lower prices (the whole gist of this argument here).


Not "higher taxes" but "better taxes."  LVT stimulates higher productivity and lower prices because the landowner has to make the rent or lose money to the tax.



> You should try to take an introduction to Economics course.  It may help you if you are serious about learing this topic.


ROTFL!!  Many of the greatest economists have advocated LVT, and I have been schooling economics PhDs on the subject for years.  I have read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation, and understand them far better than all but a handful of trained economists.

----------


## Roy L

> 1. How do you stop the LVT assessors, who must hold a monopoly of assessment and collection,


Didn't take you long to tell a stupid lie, now, did it?  The assessments would be done by computer using market transaction data.  Collection is totally separate and just a matter of sending out assessments, depositing checks, and reminding delinquent landowners of their obligations.



> from raising the assessments for their own selfish political interests?


How do you stop them from kidnapping all the 12-year-old blonde girls and selling them as sex slaves in Pakistan?

All the assessments would be public, so anyone could check their accuracy.  And as soon as anyone tried to raise the assessments over the rent, land would be abandoned, reducing total revenue.



> 2. Governemnts are by thier nature unable to calculate and budget properly.


Didn't take you long to tell another stupid lie, now, did it?



> They constantly waste tax revenue thanks to the "socialist calculation problem".


Utter nonsense.  Austrian-school ninnies think they can just chant "socialist calculation problem" and everyone else has to genuflect and agree with anything they say.



> Whats to stop them from continually raising the LVT and adding misc. additions like environmental fees on top of the LVT when the government is blowing out deficits?


It's a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction.  Raise the price too high, and you lose revenue.



> 3. Where is the great check and balance that would prevent your LVT funded government from expropriating all incomes and wealth from the use of land?


You mean the way landowners currently do...?

If you try to charge too much LVT for land, people will just use less of it, reducing total revenue.



> 4. What is the fail safe to stop the inevitable mountains of regulations, fees and taxes under other names from being levied by the LVT assessors?


People being smarter than infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" whiners.



> 5. What is to stop certain LVT payers from lobbing the LVT funded monopolists to spend money to improve their property at the expense of other LVT payers? In exchange for votes of course...


The absence of any profit therefrom: i.e., the exact opposite of what happens under our current non-LVT system, where such corruption is routine.

GET IT???

The problem you claim LVT will cause is exactly the problem with the current system, which LVT will solve.



> Monopoly is something which brings down your whole system.


No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you.  Land is a canonical example of monopoly, and the market rent is not affected by the number of landowners.



> Which is the very problem of the current system.


The problem with the current system is the exorbitant, growing, and unsustainable welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners at the expense of the productive.

----------


## James Madison

Wow. And I thought voluntaryists and an-caps were delusional. EcoWarrier and RoyL know how to bring the stupid. 

Carry on.

----------


## Roy L

> Wow. And I thought voluntaryists and an-caps were delusional. EcoWarrier and RoyL know how to bring the stupid.


You cannot refute a single sentence I have written, and you know it.  Simple.

Many great economists, philosophers and other deep thinkers have advocated LVT.  They merely understand what you do not.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Consider two farmers farming the same amount and quality of land. One owns the land he farms, the other rents it. They are both selling their crops at the same price. They are both equally efficient. They both use the same production methods. Because the owner/farmer owns the land, he is pocketing the land rent as well as the profit from farming, so his income is maybe triple the renting farmer's income. Now introduce LVT. The renting farmer is completely unaffected, as he now just pays the exact same rent to the government that he formerly paid to the landowner. His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc. The farmer who owns his land is not happy because now he only makes as much money as the renting farmer, but there is no reason for him to close his business or go bankrupt: he can't get back his unearned income by giving up his earned income. He just no longer enjoys the unfair advantage he had over the renting farmer through owning the land.


What a cute little story, the moral of which appears to be:  A renter has two reasons for happiness should all former owners be turned into renters.  For one, the renter's situatation has not changed, since he owes the same rents, only now they go to the state.  But the renter's other reason for being happy with landowners being reduced to renters is the satisfaction of knowing that *they both now share the same economic disadvantages*. 

Let's bust that story out of your false choice, closed loop, all-encompassing and ridiculously LVT-convenient paper tiger mode, shall we? 

Consider two farmers (Very Good Friends and Neighbors) who are farming the same amount and quality of land, with a country border that separates them.  *Both* farmers _own the land they farm_.  As both are landowners, neither has ever paid rents to any other landowner. Both farmers sell their crops at the same price, are equally efficient, and using the same production methods.  Both are pocketing all of the profits from farming, which naturally includes the land rents, since that factor of production was bought and paid for (to each respective state, we'll call them both homestead farmers), and is owned by each farmer.  So both are free and secure on their land, with income that is roughly equal.  

Now introduce LVT, as a Land Fascist/GeoSocialist coup has taken place on one side of the border, _in one country only_.  Now one of the farmers rents his land from the state.  The other farmer still owns his land, so his income is now "_maybe triple the renting farmer's income_". 

The landowning farmer in the LVT-free country is unaffected, as he never paid rents to a landowner to begin with, and still owes no rents to the government.  His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc.  The farmer who now rents his land from the state is obviously not happy because now he makes far less money than the landowning farmer, who now has more capital to work with on his farm. The LVT-renting farmer, on the other hand, must work much, much harder to simply exist, as he is now effectively a sharecropper who must support both his farm and the state, and has much less capital to invest.

The LVT Fascist/"State Capitalists" let the renting farmer know that he is a simpleton who does not know any economics, and should feel good now that he is no longer a thief who is robbing everyone in the community and depriving them of justice and liberty without just compensation, while supporting the cause of millions upon millions of deaths, to the tune of two holocausts, every year.  They further let him know that there is no reason to close his business or go bankrupt. He must accept his permanent indentured servitude status to the new Geosocialist state, and learn new terminology language that is not so _Evil Murdering Propertarian_ oriented.  

The LVT-renting farmer can downsize his farm, making room for other would-be state sharecroppers (er, farmers), but the more likely path if he can't make it is to sell to the more capital-rich farmer nearby, who seizes the opportunity to consolidate all the other farmers eggs into his basket for maximum yield. Having sold, the former renting farmer might be able to flee across the border, and try for citizenship in the LVT-free country.  Or, he can just listen to Roy, the community LVT zealot, who can teach him all about how to stew, green with envy in the knowledge that the LVT-free landowning neighbor (and sympathetic friend) across the fence, whose situation has not changed, has "_obtained_" an economic advantage that he never really sought in the first place.  But the renter will really stew against his own state - not his landowning neighbor and friend, because the perpetual-renter-with-no-landowning-opportunity knows the truth - that he is now artificially fettered *with economic disadvantages* that were clapped onto him like a ball and chain, as the land that was once his was "incorporated" and arrogated as State Capital by those at the State Capitol without his consent.

NOTE TO ROY: The people of East Germany did not wish that West Germany would become more like East Germany. Quite the opposite, all but the most hardened, glassy-eyed believing zealots wanted the $#@! out, into the land with the LEAST economic _disadvantages_.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> LVT adds nothing to the annual cost of running a farm or business, because it is exactly the same whether any farm or business is run on the land or not.  And by replacing unfair and harmful taxes, it REDUCES the cost of running a farm or business.  The only "activity" it increases the cost of is owning land.  But owning land doesn't produce any food.
> 
> GET IT?





> As Ricardo showed 200 years ago, the cost of land is the payment for an economic advantage.  It has *no effect* on the price of food, which is determined by supply and demand, and is the same for farmers who pay the most rent as for those who pay no rent.
> 
> But LVT makes his costs go *down*, not up, because it reduces the acquisition cost of land and replaces taxes that increase his costs.  The producer no longer has to pay for government twice.





> Consider two farmers farming the same amount and quality of land.  One owns the land he farms, the other rents it.  They are both selling their crops at the same price.  They are both equally efficient.  They both use the same production methods.  Because the owner/farmer owns the land, he is pocketing the land rent as well as the profit from farming, so his income is maybe triple the renting farmer's income.  Now introduce LVT.  The renting farmer is completely unaffected, as he now just pays the exact same rent to the government that he formerly paid to the landowner.  His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc.  The farmer who owns his land is not happy because now he only makes as much money as the renting farmer, but there is no reason for him to close his business or go bankrupt: he can't get back his unearned income by giving up his earned income.  He just no longer enjoys the unfair advantage he had over the renting farmer through owning the land.


Roy, fantastic. Very well put across.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Consider two farmers (Very Good Friends and Neighbors) who are farming the same amount and quality of land, with a country border that separates them.  *Both* farmers _own the land they farm_.  As both are landowners, neither has ever paid rents to any other landowner. Both farmers sell their crops at the same price, are equally efficient, and using the same production methods.  Both are pocketing all of the profits from farming, which naturally includes the land rents, since that factor of production was bought and paid for (to each respective state, we'll call them both homestead farmers), and is owned by each farmer.  So both are free and secure on their land, with income that is roughly equal.  
> 
> Now introduce LVT, as a Land Fascist/GeoSocialist coup has taken place on one side of the border, _in one country only_.  Now one of the farmers rents his land from the state.  The other farmer still owns his land, so his income is now "_maybe triple the renting farmer's income_".


Steven what a silly little story. You are confused - as usual.  The farmer on the good guy LVT side of the border pays no Sales tax, Income tax, Property tax and other steath taxes, while the farmer on the economic, parastical, land facist side of the border pays all these inane heavy-weight taxes.

Steven, boy you really do not get it, do you !! Wow.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The problem with the current system is the exorbitant, growing, and unsustainable welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners at the expense of the productive.


Spot on!  Appropriation of commonwealth (owned by us all) by private indiviuals and organizations is the crux of the problem in the flawed capitalist system we now have. Solve this and many other social problems are solved.

----------


## EcoWarrier

*Many of the greatest minds around the world have recognised that the public appropriation of the value of land is morally right and economically effective.* This is just a modest selection of these many people and represent, once again, a surprising cross-section of political orientations.
______________________________

It is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.

*Thomas Paine*, intellectual, American revolutionary, author of "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man"
______________________________

I respect the man who properly named these villains land sharks. They are like the wretched ghouls who follow a ship and fatten on its offal.

The land, the earth God gave to man for his home, sustenance and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water -- if as much. An individual or company, or enterprise, acquiring land should hold no more than is required for their home and sustenance, and never more than they have in actual use in the prudent management of their legitimate business, and this much should not be permitted when it creates an exclusive monopoly.

*Abraham Lincoln*, President of the United States, 1861 to 1865. First President of the Republican Party, known as "the Great Emancipator"
______________________________

The only indubitable means of improving the position of the workers, which is at the same time in conformity with the will of God, consists in the liberation of the land from its usurpation by the landlords. …The most just and practicable scheme, in my opinion, is that of Henry George, known as the single-tax system.

*Leo Tolstoy*, Christian anarchist, pacifist, author "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" widely regarded as one of the greatest novelists of all time
______________________________

...one of the most cogent and audacious thinkers, ...George's book was a revelation not only for the workers, but also for the intellectuals. Only Darwin, in the natural sciences, left an impression comparable to that of George in the social sciences. ...His devotion can be compared to the love of Nazareen, expressed in the language of our times. ...

*José Martí*, leader of the Cuban independence movement and noted poet and writer
______________________________

We want to do something to bring the land within the grasp of the people. We want to put an end to the system whereby the land of this country is retailed by the ounce, so that there should not be an extra grain of breathing spaces. . . .The resources of the land are frozen by the old feudal system. I am looking forward to the spring-time, when the thaw will set in, and when the people and the children of the people shall enter into the inheritance that has been given them from on high.

*David Lloyd George*, 1st Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1916-1922
______________________________

When we learn that the value of land belongs to all of us, then we will be free men -- no need to legislate to keep men and women from working themselves to death; no need to legislate against the white slave traffic. ...The "single tax" is so simple, so fundamental and so easy to carry into effect that I have no doubt that it will be about the last land reform the world will ever get. People in this world are not often logical.

*Clarence Darrow*, American lawyer, leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union, defender of John T. Scopes in the so-called "Monkey" Trial of 1925.
______________________________

We ought to tax all idle land the way Henry George said -- tax it heavily, so that its owners would have to make it productive.

*Henry Ford*, founder of the Ford Motor Company and developer of the modern assembly line used in mass production.
______________________________

Our moral thoughts are usually cast ultimately into a theological form, and so the land reformer's case is generally opened by a statement like ' the land is God's common gift to all.' Cast in its severely economic form, however, the point is equally effective. Rent is a toll, not a payment for service. By it social values are transferred from social pools into private pockets, and it becomes the means of vast economic exploitation... Rent is obviously a common resource. Differences of fertility and value of site must be equalised by rent, and it ought to go to common funds and be spent in the common interest.

*Ramsey MacDonald*, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1924 and 1929 - 1935
______________________________

When modern, enlightened cities levy land taxes, the burdens upon the common people are lightened, and many other advantages follow. If Canton city should now collect land taxes according to land values, the government would have a large and steady source of funds for administration. The whole place could be put into good order.

But at present, the rising land values in Canton all go to the landowners themselves -- they do not belong to the community. The government has no regular income, and so to meet expenses it has to levy all sorts of miscellaneous taxes upon the common people. This burden upon the common people is too heavy; they are always having to pay out taxes and so are terribly poor -- and the number of poor people in China is enormous. The reasons for the heavy burdens upon the poor are the unjust system of taxation practiced by the government, and the unequal distribution of land power and the failure to solve the land problem. If we can put the land tax completely into effect, the land problem will be solved and the common people will not have to endure such suffering.

*Sun Yat Sen*, Chinese revoluitionary, "Father of the Nation", first president of the Republic of China, co-founder of the Kuomintang
______________________________

I have made speeches by the yard on the subject of land value taxation, and you know what a supporter I am of that policy.

It is quite true that the 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 forms of monopoly.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same, and are similar in all respects to the unearned increment in land.

*Winston S. Churchill*, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1940-1945, 1951-1955, Winner 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature
______________________________

The mere abolition of rent would not remove injustice, since it would confer a capricious advantage upon the occupiers of the best sites and the most fertile land. It is necessary that there should be rent, but it should be paid to the state or to some body which performs public services; or, if the total rental were more than is required for such purposes, it might be paid into a common fund and divided equally among the population.

*Bertrand Russell*, British philosopher, logician and political activist
______________________________

Site-value property taxation may also spark greater development in cities by taxing land, not buildings. Unlike traditional taxation -- which rewards developers who put up cheap, tacky housing and strip malls -- site-value taxation gives developers the incentive to build gracious, durable buildings. Allowances for affordable housing, however, need to be part of site-value schemes.

We need a big debate on different kinds of taxation, to talk about how corporations are freeloading on public services and getting tax breaks while taxes are falling on workers and smaller businesses. We need to open a debate about land taxation and Henry George, to tax bad things, not good things, and not to tax people who go to work every day.

*Ralph Nader*, U.S. attorney and political activist, advocate of consumer rights, feminism, environmentalism and democratic government. Greens candidate for President, founder of almost fifty non-profit organisations.
______________________________

----------


## angelatc

There's no such thing as "the public."

----------


## James Madison

> You cannot refute a single sentence I have written, and you know it.  Simple.
> 
> Many great economists, philosophers and other deep thinkers have advocated LVT.  They merely understand what you do not.


U mad, bro?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> U mad, bro?


The only mad one is you. Roy is highly intelligent man, who has educated many on these forums.  Most here are freeloaders.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> There's no such thing as "the public."


Maybe not in La-la land, but on planet earth there is.

----------


## Dr.3D

LOL, just clicked on this thread to see why it was up to 391 posts.... turns out it has turned into another infomercial about LVT.

----------


## awake

The notion that there are good taxes and bad taxes is laughable, and LVT as a good tax is absurd.

The idea that the state is necessary to carry out certain special functions is borderline infantile. Hoppe demolishes this view:

"These statist arguments can be refuted by a combination of three fundamental insights: First, as for the kindergarten argument, *it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods.* People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy. *From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes*. And second, immediately following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive to produce efficiently. State roads and schools will only be more costly and their quality lower. For there is always a tendency for state agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do but actually work as little as possible doing it.Third, as for the more sophisticated statist argument, it involves the same fallacy encountered already at the kindergarten level. For even if one were to grant the rest of the argument, it is still a fallacy to conclude from the fact that states provide public goods that _only_ states can do so.More importantly, however, it must be pointed out that the entire argument demonstrates a total ignorance of the most fundamental fact of human life, namely, scarcity. True, markets will not provide for all desirable things. There are always unsatisfied wants as long as we do not inhabit the Garden of Eden. But to bring such unproduced goods into existence scarce resources must be expended, which consequently can no longer be used to produce other, likewise desirable things. *Whether public goods exist next to private ones does not matter in this regard—the fact of scarcity remains unchanged: more “public” goods can come only at the expense of less “private” goods.* Yet what needs to be demonstrated is that one good is more important and valuable than another one. This is what is meant by “economizing.”*Yet can the state help economize scarce resources? This is the question that must be answered. In fact, however, conclusive proof exists that the state does not and cannot economize: For in order to produce anything, the state must resort to taxation (or legislation)—which demonstrates irrefutably that its subjects do not want what the state produces but prefer instead something else as more important. Rather than economize, the state can only redistribute: it can produce more of what it wants and less of what the people want—and, to recall, whatever the state then produces will be produced inefficiently.*Finally, the most sophisticated argument in favor of the state must be briefly examined. From Hobbes on down this argument has been repeated endlessly. It runs like this: In the state of nature—before the establishment of a state—permanent conflict reigns. Everyone claims a right to everything, and this will result in interminable war. There is no way out of this predicament by means of agreements; for who would _enforce_ these agreements? Whenever the situation appeared advantageous, one or both parties would break the agreement. Hence, people recognize that there is but one solution to the _desideratum_ of peace: the establishment, per agreement, of a state, i.e., a third, independent party as ultimate judge and enforcer. *Yet if this thesis is correct and agreements require an outside enforcer to make them binding, then a state-by-agreement can never come into existence. For in order to enforce the very agreement that is to result in the formation of a state (to make this agreement binding), another outside enforcer, a prior state, would already have to exist. And in order for this state to have come into existence, yet another still earlier state must be postulated, and so on, in infinite regress."

*
Further: If we accept the Hobbesian idea that the enforcement of mutually agreed upon rules _does_ require some independent third party, this would actually rule out the establishment of a state. In fact, it would constitute a conclusive argument _against_ the institution of a state, i.e., of a _monopolist_of ultimate decision-making and arbitration. For then, there must also exist an independent third party to decide in every case of conflict between me (private citizen) and some state agent, and likewise an independent third party must exist for every case of intra-state conflicts (and there must be another independent third party for the case of conflicts between various third parties)—yet this means, of course, that such a “state” (or any independent third party) would be no state as I have defined it at the outset but simply one of many freely competing third-party conflict arbitrators

....Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts between them. Someone then proposes, as a solution to this human problem, that he (or someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. Is this is a deal that you would accept? I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable. Yet this is precisely what all statists propose."


Citing Lincoln as an advocate of liberty is simply peeing on the 600,000 dead Americans he needlessly sent to their graves preventing the south from seceding. Its was the South's liberty to do so and he crushed them like the tyrant he was.

Liberty through statisim is a monumental contradiction. And the argument that LVT as a necessary means to a better form of government securing a just society is rightfully dead in the water.

“_The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else._”—Frédéric Bastiat

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You will find that the title of the land is "yours" as soon as you sign the mortgage documents NOT on the final payment. The mortgage provider cannot walk onto your land or into your house at any time.
> 
> Say the value of the land you bought when you took up the mortgage was $100,000. Now it is worth $400,000.  That is an unearned gain of $300,000.  Where did this $300,000 in value come from? The sky? mmm, no. By you painting the window frames of the house?  mmmm, no.  
> 
> *The increased $300,000 value was created by economic community activity which soaked into the land crystallizing as land values.*  That is economic fact. The landowner, you, did not make the land values. Currently this common wealth, which you, did NOT create is appropriated by you. That is legalized theft.  *Freeloading*


Say you bought gold when it was $250 an ounce and today it is $1250.  You have "stolen" $1000 from society.  You should pay taxes on that amount. You did not earn that money.  Where did that $1000 come from- the sky?  mmm- no. 

The gains exist only on paper.  I don't have that $300,000.   I could if I sold my house today- just as you don't have that $1000 increase in the value of your gold.  I didn't buy a $400k house because I could not afford one- why should I pay taxes for a $400k house when I did not buy one?   You did not buy $1250 gold either.  Now we must both sell waht we bought to be able to get the money to "give back" that which we "stole" from society.

No- we did not steal from society but if this is the result, it is us who are being stolen from.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You cannot refute a single sentence I have written, and you know it.  Simple.
> 
> Many great economists, philosophers and other deep thinkers have advocated LVT.  They merely understand what you do not.


You have been refuted all over the place and are unable to recognize it.

----------


## Roy L

> What a cute little story, the moral of which appears to be:  A renter has two reasons for happiness should all former owners be turned into renters.  For one, the renter's situatation has not changed, since he owes the same rents, only now they go to the state.  But the renter's other reason for being happy with landowners being reduced to renters is the satisfaction of knowing that *they both now share the same economic disadvantages*.


I.e., he is no longer being robbed through taxation of his economic activity to support an idle, privileged, greedy landowning overclass.  That is indeed a good reason for him -- or any honest person -- to be happy.



> Let's bust that story out of your false choice, closed loop, all-encompassing and ridiculously LVT-convenient paper tiger mode, shall we?


It is self-evidently clear, honest and irrefutable.

Without reading any further, I predict that you will now start lying:



> Consider two farmers (Very Good Friends and Neighbors) who are farming the same amount and quality of land, with a country border that separates them.  *Both* farmers _own the land they farm_.  As both are landowners, neither has ever paid rents to any other landowner.


First lie.  The only way people *become* landowners is by paying all the future rents to the current landowner in advance.



> Both farmers sell their crops at the same price, are equally efficient, and using the same production methods.  Both are pocketing all of the profits from farming, which naturally includes the land rents,


Second lie.  Land rent is not a profit of farming, as the landowner gets it without doing any farming.



> since that factor of production was bought and paid for (to each respective state, we'll call them both homestead farmers),


Third lie.  Appropriating land under a legal privilege of removing others' rights to liberty without making just compensation is not the same as paying the state for it.  What you have done here, by assuming the farmers got their land effectively for free as "homesteaders," is conveniently -- and very, very dishonestly -- erase the fact that land is *not* free, that someone entering the farming business would have to pay full market value for it, and that others who did not get it for free have had to pay for it effectively as a subsidy to those who got it for free.



> and is owned by each farmer.


I see.  So, if each of your hypothetical farmers owned a NYC taxi medallion and was being paid $50K/yr by the cab driver for it, that would be profit earned by farming?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...



> So both are free and secure on their land, with income that is roughly equal.


What?  No lie?  You're slipping.



> Now introduce LVT, as a Land Fascist/GeoSocialist


Two mutually contradictory (surprise!) lies.



> coup has taken place on one side of the border, _in one country only_.  Now one of the farmers rents his land from the state.  The other farmer still owns his land, so his income is now "_maybe triple the renting farmer's income_".


Because he received, effectively for free, a highly lucrative privilege of removing others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.



> The landowning farmer in the LVT-free country is unaffected, as he never paid rents to a landowner to begin with, and still owes no rents to the government.


Right: the institution of landowning is extremely lucrative for the initial appropriator who gets to remove others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.



> His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc.  The farmer who now rents his land from the state is obviously not happy because now he makes far less money than the landowning farmer, who now has more capital to work with on his farm.


No, you are confusing rent with wages and interest.  The landowner has no particular reason to devote his unearned rent income to farm capital.  He can just buy a taxi medallion and make the same return, without the risk of relying on his own farming skills to make a capital investment in his farm pay off.



> The LVT-renting farmer, on the other hand, must work much, much harder to simply exist,


No, he just no longer gets to pocket the unearned rent income.  If he is not making enough as a farmer while paying the market rent, why was he farming before the LVT reform in the first place, instead of renting out his land to someone better able to use it productively, and just pocketing the rent?



> as he is now effectively a sharecropper who must support both his farm and the state,


Lie.  Others are just no longer being forced to support HIM.



> and has much less capital to invest.


Right.  It's very much the same as if he formerly owned some slaves, and the nasty gubmint came along and emancipated them: he has less money, is getting only the wages he earns by his own labor, and is no longer privileged to pocket others' rightful wages taken from them by force.

That's the problem with hypothetical examples: the people in them can't be any smarter than the guy making up the example.



> The LVT Fascist/"State Capitalists" let the renting farmer know that he is a simpleton who does not know any economics, and should feel good now that he is no longer a thief who is robbing everyone in the community and depriving them of justice and liberty without just compensation, while supporting the cause of millions upon millions of deaths, to the tune of two holocausts, every year.  They further let him know that there is no reason to close his business or go bankrupt.


All perfectly true, except that if he is struggling to make a go of it as a farmer now that he can't pocket the rent, it means he is not competitive with the farmers who can afford to pay the full rent, and should therefore probably think about trying a more suitable line of work and letting a more productive farmer use the land.  Unless he just loves farming so much that he can accept his reduced standard of living, of course.



> He must accept his permanent indentured servitude status


Lie.  He is free to sell up his capital and improvements to someone better able to use them, and seek a more suitable line of work.  If he wants, he can choose to use no more good land than his equal fair share, and *never pay anything to the state ever again*.

You just always have to lie.  ALWAYS.



> to the new Geosocialist state,


<yawn>  Lie.



> and learn new terminology language that is not so _Evil Murdering Propertarian_ oriented.


Well, it's quite possible that he mistakenly considered himself a successful farmer when he was really just a successful rent seeker, and that might be a hard truth to learn.  But the fact that others were offering him more rent for the land than he was earning by his labor should have been a clue.



> The LVT-renting farmer can downsize his farm, making room for other would-be state sharecroppers (er, farmers), but the more likely path if he can't make it is to sell to the more capital-rich farmer nearby, who seizes the opportunity to consolidate all the other farmers eggs into his basket for maximum yield.


I.e., thanks to LVT, a more efficient producer gets to use the land, INCREASING TOTAL PRODUCTION, JUST AS WE SAID WOULD HAPPEN, _EVEN IN YOUR OWN EXAMPLE_.



> Having sold, the former renting farmer might be able to flee across the border, and try for citizenship in the LVT-free country.


I.e., having seen his escalator ride grind to a halt and offer him only the opportunity to climb up by his own efforts, like the former treadmill inmates LVT has liberated in his own country, he might nostalgically (though foolishly) choose to climb on the producers' treadmill that powers the landowners' escalator in the still-benighted anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-prosperity country next door.

See above: the people in hypothetical examples unfortunately can't be any smarter than the guy making up the example.



> Or, he can just listen to Roy, the community LVT zealot, who can teach him all about how to stew, green with envy in the knowledge that the LVT-free landowning neighbor (and sympathetic friend) across the fence, whose situation has not changed, has "_obtained_" an economic advantage that he never really sought in the first place.


He never sought to ride the escalator rather than toil on the treadmill that powers it?  Really, Steven?

*REALLY????*



> But in his greed for unearned wealth, the former escalator rider will really stew against his own state - not his still-riding neighbor and friend, because the perpetual-worker-with-no-freeloading-opportunity knows the truth - that his victims are no longer artificially fettered *with economic disadvantages* that were clapped onto them like a ball and chain, as the privilege that was once his was "eliminated" in the public interest by the defenders of liberty, justice and truth without his consent.


There.  Fixed it for you.



> NOTE TO ROY: The people of East Germany did not wish that West Germany would become more like East Germany. Quite the opposite, all but the most hardened, glassy-eyed believing zealots wanted the $#@! out, into the land with the LEAST economic _disadvantages_.


At the time of unification, West Germany's taxes and government spending per capita were more than double East Germany's.

You are destroyed.

----------


## Roy L

> Say you bought gold when it was $250 an ounce and today it is $1250.  You have "stolen" $1000 from society.


No, because what you bought was not something others would otherwise have had for free.  Someone produced it, and you paid them (however indirectly) for producing it.



> You should pay taxes on that amount. You did not earn that money.  Where did that $1000 come from- the sky?  mmm- no.


It came from the increased value of what you paid the gold's producer for.



> The gains exist only on paper.


They are as real as a gain on any asset's value.  They just aren't liquid.



> I don't have that $300,000.


Yes, you do, just as much as if it was stock that increased in value.



> I could if I sold my house today- just as you don't have that $1000 increase in the value of your gold.


Yes, you do.  The fact that it isn't liquid and might be lost doesn't mean it doesn't exist right now.



> I didn't buy a $400k house because I could not afford one- why should I pay taxes for a $400k house when I did not buy one?


Because that reflects the value of what you are taking from the community.



> You did not buy $1250 gold either.  Now we must both sell waht we bought to be able to get the money to "give back" that which we "stole" from society.


The gold is a product of labor.  The land is not.




> No- we did not steal from society


Land value is identically equal to the minimum discounted present value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes.  I.e., it is how much the landowner expects to steal.



> but if this is the result, it is us who are being stolen from.


Garbage.  How could anyone steal from you what was never rightly yours?

----------


## Roy L

> There's no such thing as "the public."


Another absurdity intended to enable atrocity.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The only way people *become* landowners is by paying all the future rents to the current landowner in advance.


"All the future rents"? IMPOSSIBLE.  Otherwise, we could CAP that as the LVT amount.  Just pay "all the future rents" (as you say are reflected in the purchase price of that land) in that same way to the state. Then you would never owe LVT again, because you have finished "paying all the future rents in advance".  But that's not how it works, and you know it.  If that was the case, the land rents could be said to have been exhausted, a patent absurdity.




> Land rent is not a profit of farming, as the landowner gets it without doing any farming.


Your misapprehension comes from not knowing anything about business or microeconomics, and your inability to stand in anything but government or collectivist shoes. 

Once land is owned, land rents on any activities on that land is 100% profit from that activity -- whatever it is -- including farming. 




> Appropriating land under a legal privilege of removing others' rights to liberty without making just compensation is not the same as paying the state for it.


Geogibberish.  Paradigm rejected, along with every false normative assumption therein.




> What you have done here, by assuming the farmers got their land effectively for free as "homesteaders," is conveniently ... erase the fact that land is *not* free...


The land was free to begin with, as even the most stalwart and glassy-eyed Geocommunist will tell you.  It does not continue to be free to anyone else once claimed, but you wouldn't agree with that because you want all land at all times to be considered by everyone to be common property -- which translates from geogibberish to *a mechanism for perpetual enslavement and productivity siphoning*. 




> ...that someone entering the farming business would have to pay full market value for it...


Yes. The homesteading farmer got for free what nature provided for free. Once in his possession, it can only enter circulation when someone compensates the farmer for its full market value (i.e., the farmer is not displaced, and can get land of comparable value elsewhere - IF HE CHOOSES). 




> ...and that others who did not get it for free have had to pay for it effectively as a subsidy to those who got it for free.


It is not a subsidy, as the farmer really does own that land, no differently than a gold miner who owns a chunk of gold he found lying on his claim, which is now in his pocket. What he got for free is now his to dispose of as he pleases -- including sell it for full market value to another *should he choose to sell it*.   




> So, if each of your hypothetical farmers owned a NYC taxi medallion  and was being paid $50K/yr by the cab driver for it, that would be profit earned by farming?


If the taxi drivers earned money ferrying people around the farm, then yes.  But if it's not related to any activity on that land, then no. It's just pure profit (assuming they actually "OWN" the medallions).  

An NYC taxi medallion is a conditional license for a conditional privilege issued by the state.  I know that you see all landownership through that lens, but in my example the Geoist infestation doesn't come until later. Initially, there are no "conditions" on the farmers for landownership imposed by the state. Both landowners actually do own their land -- until the LVT locusts arrive on one side of the border. 




> Because he received, effectively for free, a highly lucrative privilege of removing others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.


More geogibberish, and more continued rejection on my part of all your ludicrous normative assumptions. 




> Right: the institution of landowning is extremely lucrative for the initial appropriator who gets to remove others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.


More geogibberish notwithstanding, landowning is extremely lucrative for both the initial appropriator and anyone who compensates him (justly and voluntarily on the parts of buyer and seller). 

The seller entices the buyer to "appropriate" the land from him for a price, even as the buyer entices the "initial appropriator" to sell it to him for a price. _A single lump sum._  Once that voluntary agreement is reached on both parts (nobody forced to buy or sell) I think we can safely say that both the buyer and seller thought it would be extremely "lucrative" to each.  As for the "_others' rights to liberty without making just compensation_", that geogibberish can safely be ignored.  Like you say all the time, if "others" want the "liberty" to use "THAT LAND", they can pay for it, like they would anything on a bakery store shelf which happens to be offered for sale.  They are not "the owners" under my propertarian regime, and that land does not "belong" to them, singularly or collectively.  So they can $#@! off and get their own land, assuming they find it advantageous enough to them.




> His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc. The farmer who now rents his land from the state is obviously not happy because now he makes far less money than the landowning farmer, who now has more capital to work with on his farm.
> 			
> 		
> 
> No, you are confusing rent with wages and interest. The landowner has no particular reason to devote his unearned rent income to farm capital.


You are the one who is confused. Your first false presumption is that there is unearned rent "*income*".  Land Rent "income" ALWAYS originates with the END USER.  If he RENTED the land that he owned to someone else, then that someone would be the END USER, from whose economic activities the "income" was generated.  In the case of the landowning farmer, the farmer himself is the END USER of that land, which means that the "income" from that land was generated by his economic activities on that land -- AKA EARNED, and inuring to the benefit that end user, as part of his equity ownership in the fruits of his labors.  




> If he is not making enough as a farmer while paying the market rent, why was he farming before the LVT reform in the first place, instead of renting out his land to someone better able to use it productively, and just pocketing the rent?


You don't know anything about business, do you Roy?  Or "sustainability", for that matter.  If a farmer, shackled with no LVT, is able to break even, he can consider himself both productive and successful, even as he contributes real value of real goods to other real (and presumably productive) people in that process (govt. tapeworms notwithstanding).  And yet you, of all people, ask why he doesn't just engage in the very behavior you hate so much.  But that's only because you NEED to think of all landowners as unproductive rent-seekers who are only renting out their lands to others for the purposes of capturing their productivity in the form of "unearned land rents".  Without that rule in place *for all landowners* your entire house of cards comes crumbling down into geodust.  It's the whole reason you try to prop it up with other geocrap, like "uncompensated liberty rights deprivations", just in case THE MAJORITY OF LANDOWNING INDIVIDUALS ON EARTH are not unproductive landowners in the way that you described. 




> All perfectly true, except that if he is struggling to make a go of it as a farmer now that he can't pocket the rent, it means he is not competitive with the farmers who can afford to pay the full rent...


Pay the full rent...to the tape worm.  If I see two thirds of the population malnourished, dead or dying from tapeworms, and one third that is relatively much healthier (better metabolisms, healthier foods, etc.,), I might assume that it's because their bodies are naturally stronger, more productive, _more efficient_. And they might well be. In that sense, they could "afford the tape worm" more than others. "Hmmm", I think. "Very interesting." As I proceed to REMOVE THE TAPE WORM from each and everyone of them, starting from the weakest, and working my way up to the strongest.

You are destroyed, as Geofascism in all its forms deserves a very ugly death.

----------


## Roy L

> "All the future rents"? IMPOSSIBLE.  Otherwise, we could CAP that as the LVT amount.


We could, if we knew how much they would be, what the tax rate would be, and what the discount rate would be, for all eternity.

It has been known for hundreds of years that the purchase price of land is just the market value of all its future after-tax rents.



> Just pay "all the future rents" (as you say are reflected in the purchase price of that land) in that same way to the state. Then you would never owe LVT again, because you have finished "paying all the future rents in advance".  But that's not how it works, and you know it.


Actually, you're wrong (as usual); it has sometimes been done that way, but it turned out to be a ridiculously good deal for the landowners as the discounting did not account for rent growth.  Google "land redemption" and start reading.



> If that was the case, the land rents could be said to have been exhausted, a patent absurdity.


There is exactly one absurdity here, and that is your claim that the landowner hasn't paid any land rent for the land.



> Your misapprehension comes from not knowing anything about business or microeconomics, and your inability to stand in anything but government or collectivist shoes.


Stupid garbage unrelated to anything.



> Once land is owned, land rents on any activities on that land is 100% profit from that activity -- whatever it is -- including farming.


No, that's just more stupid garbage from you, as usual.  The rent is the same whether there is any profit or not, whether there is any activity or not, and therefore cannot be the profit of any activity.  You're just spewing whatever stupid $#!+ comes into your head.



> Geogibberish.  Paradigm rejected, along with every false normative assumption therein.


I identified the objective facts, and you have to refuse to know them.  It's always the same.



> The land was free to begin with, as even the most stalwart and glassy-eyed Geocommunist will tell you.


If there could be such a thing as a Geocommunist, which there can't.



> It does not continue to be free to anyone else once claimed, but you wouldn't agree with that because you want all land at all times to be considered by everyone to be common property -- which translates from geogibberish to *a mechanism for perpetual enslavement and productivity siphoning*.


It is a universal fact of history that it is the institution of private property in land that enables perpetual enslavement and productivity siphoning, as proved by the condition of the landless in every country where land is privately owned, but government does not intercede massively on behalf of the landless to rescue them from the enslaving and productivity siphoning effects of private landowning.



> The homesteading farmer got for free what nature provided for free. Once in his possession, it can only enter circulation when someone compensates the farmer for its full market value (i.e., the farmer is not displaced, and can get land of comparable value elsewhere - IF HE CHOOSES).


I.e., he gets something for nothing.  Right.



> It is not a subsidy, as the farmer really does own that land, no differently than a gold miner who owns a chunk of gold he found lying on his claim, which is now in his pocket. What he got for free is now his to dispose of as he pleases -- including sell it for full market value to another *should he choose to sell it*.


It is definitely a subsidy, as the landowner is getting something for nothing at the community's expense.



> If the taxi drivers earned money ferrying people around the farm, then yes.


More of the absurdity intended to enable atrocity.



> An NYC taxi medallion is a conditional license for a conditional privilege issued by the state.  I know that you see all landownership through that lens,


Because that's what it self-evidently and indisputably is.



> More geogibberish, and more continued rejection on my part of all your ludicrous normative assumptions.


The facts are indisputable.  You are the one basing all your claims on ludicrous normative assumptions.



> More geogibberish notwithstanding, landowning is extremely lucrative for both the initial appropriator and anyone who compensates him (justly and voluntarily on the parts of buyer and seller).


No.  Many people go broke buying land -- HELLOOOOO?!?!??!?? -- but the initial appropriation is flat-out theft.



> The seller entices the buyer to "appropriate" the land from him for a price, even as the buyer entices the "initial appropriator" to sell it to him for a price.


There is typically no such "enticement" involved.



> Once that voluntary agreement is reached on both parts (nobody forced to buy or sell) I think we can safely say that both the buyer and seller thought it would be extremely "lucrative" to each.


But in fact, it is to the seller, but might not be to the buyer.



> As for the "_others' rights to liberty without making just compensation_", that geogibberish can safely be ignored.


You have to ignore it, because it is a fact that proves your beliefs are false and evil.



> Like you say all the time, if "others" want the "liberty" to use "THAT LAND", they can pay for it, like they would anything on a bakery store shelf which happens to be offered for sale.


And pay the hoodlum standing in front of the bread, instead of paying the baker who created its value....



> You are the one who is confused. Your first false presumption is that there is unearned rent "*income*".


Land rent income is indisputably unearned, as the recipient doesn't do anything for it.



> Land Rent "income" ALWAYS originates with the END USER.  If he RENTED the land that he owned to someone else, then that someone would be the END USER, from whose economic activities the "income" was generated.


LOL!  Right.  The land rent income was earned.... just not by the landowner who got it.



> In the case of the landowning farmer, the farmer himself is the END USER of that land, which means that the "income" from that land was generated by his economic activities on that land -- AKA EARNED, and inuring to the benefit that end user, as part of his equity ownership in the fruits of his labors.


Garbage.  The advantage he obtains by excluding others from the better land is not earned by labor, it is the proceeds of theft.



> You don't know anything about business, do you Roy?


<yawn>  I've run my own business for 20 years, and worked closely enough with MANY business executives and owners to be intimately acquainted with their operations.



> If a farmer, shackled with no LVT, is able to break even, he can consider himself both productive and successful, even as he contributes real value of real goods to other real (and presumably productive) people in that process (govt. tapeworms notwithstanding).


Nonsense.  If someone else could use that land more productively, he is IMPEDING production, not contributing to it.  And if the market rent is greater than his total product, he is actually reducing the community's wealth by keeping others from using the land.



> And yet you, of all people, ask why he doesn't just engage in the very behavior you hate so much.  But that's only because you NEED to think of all landowners as unproductive rent-seekers who are only renting out their lands to others for the purposes of capturing their productivity in the form of "unearned land rents".


Because that is indisputably what they are.



> Without that rule in place *for all landowners* your entire house of cards comes crumbling down into geodust.


Garbage unrelated to fact or logic.



> It's the whole reason you try to prop it up with other geocrap, like "uncompensated liberty rights deprivations", just in case THE MAJORITY OF LANDOWNING INDIVIDUALS ON EARTH are not unproductive landowners in the way that you described.


What landowners do as individuals is irrelevant.  Maybe one landowner farms his land.  Maybe another works as a baker.  Maybe another leads a Boy Scout troop.  So what?  It is what they do QUA landowner that defines the economic role of the landowner.



> Pay the full rent...to the tape worm.


No, the community that creates it.



> If I see two thirds of the population malnourished, dead or dying from tapeworms, and one third that is relatively much healthier (better metabolisms, healthier foods, etc.,),


It means you're in a place with private landowning and a government that doesn't intercede massively on behalf of the landless to rescue them from its inevitable economic effects.



> I might assume that it's because their bodies are naturally stronger, more productive, _more efficient_. And they might well be. In that sense, they could "afford the tape worm" more than others. "Hmmm", I think. "Very interesting." As I proceed to REMOVE THE TAPE WORM from each and everyone of them,


Nope.  By making land into private property, you infest *all* of the productive with tapeworms.



> starting from the weakest, and working my way up to the strongest.


The private landowner is the tapeworm, as already proved.  He is the one who takes from the producer and contributes nothing in return, as already proved.



> You are destroyed, as Geofascism in all its forms deserves a very ugly death.


You would be funny if your viciously evil ideology were not inflicting two Holocausts a year on innocent human beings.

----------


## Roy L

> The notion that there are good taxes and bad taxes is laughable, and LVT as a good tax is absurd.


Every informed person is aware that there are good and bad taxes, and every honest, intelligent and informed person is aware that LVT is one of the good ones.  Google "Pigovian tax" and start reading.



> The idea that the state is necessary to carry out certain special functions is borderline infantile.


"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...."

"Infantile" would describe the "meeza hatesa gubmint" morons.



> Hoppe demolishes this view:


??  ROTFL!!  Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the stupidest and most dishonest lying sack of feudal propertarian $#!+ in the whole Austrian School, and that is saying something.  Virtually every sentence he writes is a fallacy, a red herring, a false and unsupported assertion, or a lie.



> These statist arguments can be refuted by a combination of three fundamental insights: First, as for the kindergarten argument, *it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods.* People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy... And second, immediately following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive to produce efficiently.


People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a non sequitur.



> State roads and schools will only be more costly and their quality lower.


Bald assertion with zero (0) factual support.



> For there is always a tendency for state agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do but actually work as little as possible doing it.


Bald assertion with zero (0) factual support.



> Third, as for the more sophisticated statist argument, it involves the same fallacy encountered already at the kindergarten level. For even if one were to grant the rest of the argument, it is still a fallacy to conclude from the fact that states provide public goods that _only_ states can do so.


Strawman fallacy.



> More importantly, however, it must be pointed out that the entire argument demonstrates a total ignorance of the most fundamental fact of human life, namely, scarcity.


Red herring, and an assertion totally lacking factual support.



> But to bring such unproduced goods into existence scarce resources must be expended, which consequently can no longer be used to produce other, likewise desirable things. *Whether public goods exist next to private ones does not matter in this regard—the fact of scarcity remains unchanged: more “public” goods can come only at the expense of less “private” goods.* Yet what needs to be demonstrated is that one good is more important and valuable than another one. This is what is meant by “economizing.”Yet can the state help economize scarce resources? _This_ is the question that must be answered. In fact, however, conclusive proof exists that the state does _not_ and cannot economize:


Flat-out lie.  There is not only no such proof, but no plausible argument to that effect, and plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary.



> For in order to produce anything, the state must resort to taxation (or legislation)—which demonstrates irrefutably that its subjects do _not_ want what the state produces but prefer instead _something else_ as _more_ important.


Flat-out lie.  Hoppe simply ignores the economics of public goods, which the private market cannot produce in efficient quantities.



> Rather than economize, the state can only redistribute:


Lie.



> it can produce more of what _it_ wants and less of what the people want—and, to recall, whatever the state then produces will be produced inefficiently.


Lie.



> Finally, the most sophisticated argument in favor of the state must be briefly examined. From Hobbes on down this argument has been repeated endlessly. It runs like this: In the state of nature—before the establishment of a state—permanent conflict reigns. Everyone claims a right to everything, and this will result in interminable war.


Lie.  No one claims everyone claims a right to everything.  Hoppe is merely falsely attributing to everyone the psychotic greed of the feudal propertarian sociopath.



> There is no way out of this predicament by means of agreements; for who would _enforce_ these agreements? Whenever the situation appeared advantageous, one or both parties would break the agreement.


So the terms of the agreement simply make it very unlikely that that would happen.  Problem solved.  Hoppe is simply committing another strawman fallacy by assuming agreements must be logically perfect, when no such condition is required.



> Hence, people recognize that there is but one solution to the _desideratum_ of peace: the establishment, per agreement, of a state, i.e., a third, independent party as ultimate judge and enforcer. [B]Yet if this thesis is correct and agreements require an outside enforcer to make them binding, then a state-by-agreement can never come into existence. For in order to enforce the very agreement that is to result in the formation of a state (to make _this_ agreement binding), another outside enforcer, a prior state, would already have to exist. And in order for _this_ state to have come into existence, yet another still earlier state must be postulated, and so on, in infinite regress."


This is typical of Hoppe's fallacious and absurd "logic."    



> Further: If we accept the Hobbesian idea that the enforcement of mutually agreed upon rules _does_ require some independent third party, this would actually rule out the establishment of a state.


Where is this allegedly Hobbesian idea to be found?  What if it is simply ignored?



> In fact, it would constitute a conclusive argument _against_ the institution of a state, i.e., of a _monopolist_of ultimate decision-making and arbitration. For then, there must also exist an independent third party to decide in every case of conflict between me (private citizen) and some state agent, and likewise an independent third party must exist for every case of intra-state conflicts (and there must be another independent third party for the case of conflicts between various third parties)—yet this means, of course, that such a “state” (or any independent third party) would be no state as I have defined it at the outset but simply one of many freely competing third-party conflict arbitrators


More typical Hoppean logic-chopping.



> ...Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts between them. Someone then proposes, as a solution to this human problem, that he (or someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. Is this is a deal that you would accept? I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable. Yet this is precisely what all statists propose.


Stupid lie.



> Citing Lincoln as an advocate of liberty is simply peeing on the 600,000 dead Americans he needlessly sent to their graves preventing the south from seceding. Its was the South's liberty to do so and he crushed them like the tyrant he was.


It was the South's liberty forcibly to deprive human beings of their rights to liberty?  There can be no such right.



> Liberty through statisim is a monumental contradiction.


No, because the word "statism" is a meaningless propaganda noise.



> And the argument that LVT as a necessary means to a better form of government securing a just society is rightfully dead in the water


It has been proved conclusively, whether you choose to know it or not.



> “_Private property in land is the great fictitious right by which landowners seek to live at the expense of producers._”—Roy L


There.  Fixed it for you.

----------


## angelatc

> It was the South's liberty forcibly to deprive human beings of their rights to liberty? There can be no such right.


But Lincoln said that if he could keep the union together without abolishing slavery he would do so.  So that tells us that the war was not about human rights.  We are the only nation that needed a civil war to abolish slavery. Everybody else managed to accomplish it with economic incentives.   

So you're wrong on this point.  While it's true that the war probably wouldn't have started if slavery hadn't existed, the war was not fought about the abolition of slavery.  It was about the State's retention of power over the southern states.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> We could [charge all LVT up front], if we knew how much they would be, what the tax rate would be, and what the discount rate would be, for all eternity.


Another absurdity, one you would oppose with your ideology if you were consistent, because even if we knew those variables, and I paid all the LVT up front, who gets that LVT? The _current state_ gets all that revenue RIGHT NOW. You know,that revenue that is supposed to account for all those liberty rights deprivations fifty and a hundred years from now. The state gets that revenue and spends it RIGHT NOW on a Bridge To Nowhere or something else that essentially worthless on the whole, which may have zero value within thirty years. So you've pretended to reconcile the putative liberty rights of that generation only.   




> It has been known for hundreds of years that the purchase price of land is just the market value of all its future after-tax rents.


Wow, Roy, you have zero concept of time as it relates to land values, any more than you have a concept of time as it relates to supply.  The purchase price of land does not EVER include "_all its future after-tax rents_". That is EASILY proved by taking any parcel of land, adding up all its after-tax rents (accounting for inflation, very important) for any given period of time (say fifty years), and asking whether the purchase price was _ever_ that amount. The market price of land may bear some relationship to its rents over time, but that time element is ALWAYS finite, always unique to that parcel, and is something you could easily equate to an imaginary mortgage to which you apply the land rents.  That mortgage -- including the time it takes to pay for the land using nothing but rents -- _is never infinite_, and therefore does not ever reflect "all its future after-tax rents".  There is another proof that completely destroys the inept notion that purchase price reflects all future land rents: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 




> There is exactly one absurdity here, and that is your claim that the landowner hasn't paid any land rent for the land.


That strawman is a move of the goalposts on your part. Your absurdity of "hasn't paid _any land rent_" was never my claim.  You substituted the word "any" for "all", as in "any land rents" in place of "all future land rents", which is the only thing that was being discussed. 




> Once land is owned, land rents on any activities on that land is 100% profit from that activity -- whatever it is -- including farming.
> 			
> 		
> 
> The rent is the same whether there is any profit or not, whether there is any activity or not, and therefore cannot be the profit of any activity.


Stay focused, Roy. Land rents (that which actually gives the annual rents of land any market value at all) cannot exist without profits from some economic activity that originates somewhere. Following that activity to its source(s) is something you neglect entirely, as if land rents really could exist, let alone be the same, "whether there is any profit or not, whether there is any activity or not".  If there is no economic activity, and therefore no profit, *all land rents fall to zero*, because nobody has anything to pay with.




> If there could be such a thing as a Geocommunist, which there can't.


Of course there is. It is my reference to you and others, defined as:  _anyone who believes that all land, including privately occupied land, belongs collectively to everyone in a given geographical area_. That my definition of a "geocommunist" - a shorthand reference, used in context, the meaning of which is abundantly clear to all but the most obtuse. Your feelings about how I have characterized and defined it, or the fact that I use it in a way that you feel is denigrating, is irrelevant.  And while I made that word up (i.e., "coined it"), I wasn't the first (Google geocommunist and geocommunism). Others may have used those words in a different context, but the fact that the word has been coined and put into usage, however uncommon, is an self-evident and indisputable fact of objective reality. 




> Once that voluntary agreement is reached on both parts (nobody forced to buy or sell) I think we can safely say that both the buyer and seller thought it would be extremely "lucrative" to each.
> 			
> 		
> 
> But in fact, it is to the seller, but might not be to the buyer.


Whether it "might be" lucrative or not is irrelevant, as I said the buyer "thought" it would be based on a demonstrated a willingness to pay: the same exact argument you use with regard to LVT. Remember?  You think that someone paying LVT is proof that they were willing" to pay it.  




> And pay the hoodlum standing in front of the bread, instead of paying the baker who created its value....


Your _personal vision_ of the state as "the baker who created" (and must forever be that-which-rents-out-but-never-sells) is an unadulterated bull$#@! to me. Nothing but Soylent Green.  The difference between us, Roy, is that I can distinguish between an owner-in-fact and how I feel about it. I don't care if it's a Saudi Sheik, Communist China, or millions of private owners in a purely propertarian landownership regime. I can recognize the _owner-in-fact_ in all cases, and can discuss it rationally from a reality standpoint, without regard to how I feel about it.  You have great difficulty with that, which accounts partly for the difficulty you have in relating and discussing concepts with others who don't share your particular beliefs. Nobody can have a rational conversation with you unless they toe a strict line of reasoning from your geocommunist (yes, it's a word now, as I have defined it) reasoning only.   

Your concept of a state's relationship to landownership makes *Roy's Presumptuous Land-Arrogating State* nothing but the worst sort of hoodlum in my eyes. Does that really matter? If I am in such a state, I have no difficulty expressing _the fact of ownership_, regardless how I think it ought to be. 

In fact, your entire LVT rationale, based on common lands rightfully "belonging" to some collective mob, or nebulous human hive called "community", spits in the face of the displaced aboriginals whose concept of "collective belonging to land without ownership" did not include any complex economic machinations that enabled _exclusive occupation_ and _restricted usage of lands_, as conditioned upon perpetual payments to any tribe, including their own. They wouldn't comprehend your artificial paradox of "reconciling" their rights except as geogibberish code-speak that translates _in reality_ to them as, "Sorry, but your liberty rights to the best lands in this territory were reconciled _rented out_ by our chiefs to the highest bidders in our territory-tribe. Those highest bidders, and not you, get all of the benefits they are paying for, but you do at least get a bone of value thrown to you in return:  Here are your Universal Individual Exemptions for Enough Good Reservation Lands to live on. If you want to enjoy the paid-for privileges of the landowners of the best lands under LVT, you are going to have prove that on the basis of what you are willing to give the state." 

Those natives would have a very good argument that your very presence is a Forked Tongue Atrocity, because you are using their practice (common hunter-gatherer agrarian access and use of all lands) as a rationale for what you say are everyone's rights, while simultaneously calling that inefficient, and creating a different set of rules that systematically *denies and destroys* those very rights with your geofascist "whomever pays the most to the state is the most privileged" conditions.  




> Land rent income is indisputably unearned, as the recipient doesn't do anything for it.


Of course he does something for it.  He secures the land, by whatever means, no differently than a person who picks up a chunk of gold and puts it in his pocket (which you would call "doing something for it").  And both the securer of land and the finder of the gold chunk create a state that further helps them secure _rights_ in what they call _their property_.

As to earned vs. unearned, who gives a $#@!?  There is no Marxist Labor Theory of Value at work here with regard to ownership. Miners don't get claims to mines on the basis of work performed, and property in general can be owned without a STITCH of labor or "earning" involved.  OWNERSHIP is the sole determinant, not anyone's concept of deserving or worth as it relates to "earning" or "productivity" (i.e., labor - and from *a decidedly Marxist reasoning*).  You want to split hairs with a special rule that applies Marxist Theory of Labor to lands only, and only as it applies to a geofascist state that becomes the rightful owner of lands (or, using pure semantics, "administrator" on behalf of The Geocommunist "People's Land"). Your geofascist For-Profit State then becomes the rightful recipient of all land rents on the basis that laborers in the state "did something" (earned, through infrastructure creation and other FOR-PROFIT services) that literally "caused" all land values to come about and exist. 




> Land Rent "income" ALWAYS originates with the END USER. If he RENTED the land that he owned to someone else, then that someone would be the END USER, from whose economic activities the "income" was generated.
> 			
> 		
> 
> The land rent income was earned.... just not by the landowner who got it.


That's under an LVT regime, Roy, which thoroughly destroys the notion that LVT is somehow "paid for" by landowners, or that the cost is borne by them.  Landowners who-are-not-end-users no more "pay for" LVT than a retail store "pays for" sales taxes, or a filling station "pays for" fuel surcharges.  And since ONLY the end users are the ones who actually generate the income required to pay for LVT, we can safely say that it is possible that *no landowner in an LVT regime would ever pay ANY LVT*.  So while the END USER that the landowner is renting to is taxed but once, such a landowner _is not taxed at all_. 

But, like you said:




> What landowners do as individuals is irrelevant.  Maybe one landowner farms his land.  Maybe another works as a baker.  Maybe another leads a Boy Scout troop.  So what?  It is what they do QUA landowner that defines the economic role of the landowner.


Fine, so long as you aren't claiming that LVT specifically targets landowners. It may take away their ability to pocket _land rents only_, but that does not mean that LVT is being paid for by landowners.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as LVT encourages landowners NOT to be the end users, but rather to be the developers who profit from the end users who always bear the entire burden of the tax.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> That's under an LVT regime, Roy, which thoroughly destroys the notion that LVT is somehow "paid for" by landowners, or that the cost is borne by them.  Landowners who-are-not-end-users no more "pay for" LVT than a retail store "pays for" sales taxes, or a filling station "pays for" fuel surcharges.  And since ONLY the end users are the ones who actually generate the income required to pay for LVT, we can safely say that it is possible that *no landowner in an LVT regime would ever pay ANY LVT*.  So while the END USER that the landowner is renting to is taxed but once, such a landowner _is not taxed at all_.


It's difficult to determine whether you're simply utterly ignorant of basic economic concepts, or just lying.  In either case, I'll direct readers to the concept of tax incidence, which shows that your construction is exactly backwards.

If a landowner is also using his land productively, the LVT captures the portion of his production that results from the relative advantages of his location (for example, a producer located closer to consumers might pay less in shipping than one located further away);  if a landowner is not the land's user, the rent he collects on the land is redirected from his pockets to the government.




> Fine, so long as you aren't claiming that LVT specifically targets landowners. It may take away their ability to pocket _land rents only_, but that does not mean that LVT is being paid for by landowners.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as LVT encourages landowners NOT to be the end users, but rather to be the developers who profit from the end users who always bear the entire burden of the tax.


No, that's also backwards.  The LVT encourages the landowner to be the end user, because there's no longer any land-rent giveaway.  Right now, there's good reason to own land, whether you wish to use it productively or not; that's not the case under the LVT.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> It's difficult to determine whether you're simply utterly ignorant of basic economic concepts, or just lying.  In either case, I'll direct readers to the concept of tax incidence, which shows that your construction is exactly backwards.


Nice can of worms, Matt, speaking of utter ignorance of basic economic concepts. You cite a wiki link about tax incidence, which you claim "shows" that my construction is backward. And yet you don't actually quote _anything_ in the source you are supposedly relying on. You instead offer your own interpretation, not even a paraphrase of _what you think it means_.  DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN SOURCE?

Right off the bat, _and using only your source_, I can show you several fatal flaws in your thinking that tax incidence automatically falls on landowners: (emphasis mine)




> ...the true burden of the tax *cannot be properly assessed without knowing the use of the tax revenues*. If the tax proceeds are employed in a manner that benefits owners more than producers and consumers then the burden of the tax will fall on producers and consumers. If the proceeds of the tax are used in a way that benefits producers and consumers, then owners suffer the tax burden. These are class distinctions concerning the distribution of costs and *are not addressed in current tax incidence models.*


Furthermore: (from your same source)




> Most public finance economists acknowledge that *nominal tax incidence (i.e. who writes the check to pay a tax) is not necessarily identical to actual economic burden of the tax, but disagree greatly among themselves* on the extent to which market forces disturb the nominal tax incidence of various types of taxes in various circumstances.
> 
> The effects of certain kinds of taxes, for example, the property tax, including their economic incidence, efficiency properties and distributional implications, *have been the subject of a long and contentious debate among economists*.


Your personal interpretation, which has nothing to do with tax incidence theory:




> If a landowner is also using his land productively, the LVT captures the portion of his production that results from the relative advantages of his location (for example, a producer located closer to consumers might pay less in shipping than one located further away);  if a landowner is not the land's user, the rent he collects on the land is redirected from his pockets to the government.


One of the key concepts of tax incidence thesis is the proposition that the "_tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply_".  And yet you didn't even bring that up. All you said, in the case of a landowner renting out capital improvements on land, should that include a land value tax, was that *"the rent he collects...is redirected...to the government"*.  That says absolutely NOTHING about the theoretical tax incidence (who bears the actual burden of the tax), and is not how _various models_ of tax incidence even works, even if we stipulated that they weren't controversial (i.e., the subject of a long and contentious debate by economists). 

Also, you equate "_no longer pockets_" (in the case of a landowner who rents out capital improvements on land) with actually bearing a burden. That is like verbal spinsters who mischaracterize "not taking" as being the equivalent of "giving".  Flowing with your characterization of landowners as thieves (which I disagree with, but we'll go with it):  If a thief is "freely pocketing" something that was being "robbed from others", and the spoils of that theft really were just an unearned windfall on the part of the thief, then "not pocketing" it cannot rightly be characterized as a "burden" to the thief, can it?  Again, the thief is not earning anything that he is taking from others, according to you, so why it that be any sweat off his backside?  

Furthermore, the actual renters (those poor poster children for LVT) are not even characterized as the rightful owners of what was being stolen from them!  That's because in reality it was not being stolen _from them_. On the contrary, it is viewed as a tax _stolen_, FROM THE STATE. The burden on the renter remains.  The thief is now told that he must continue to steal the same amount from the renters, only this time it won't be called theft, because the state will finally get the tax that is being collecting on behalf of...the renters. And for this they should be grateful, because the state will only tax renters once, and..."give back value" and...do good things, all of which are said to be in exchange for the benefits already assumed to have been provided to those on which the tax incidence, or burden of the tax, falls -- _whomever they are_.




> The LVT encourages the landowner to be the end user, because there's no longer any land-rent giveaway. Right now, there's good reason to own land, whether you wish to use it productively or not; that's not the case under the LVT.


Bull$#@! in the absolute.  In all major metropolitan areas, landowners are encouraged to become developers, because while land is scarce, the vertical capital improvements on land is not.  The sky is the limit in that competitive market, based on a *high ratio of capital improvements to land*, to the point where LVT, which would be cost prohibitive to an individual, is practically *a non-factor to landowning developers*, with the renters bearing the entire burden of the tax anyway.  In that way, the landowner can become a rent free, LVT free subsidized end user of his own penthouse, as he collects rents on his floating vertically capitalized "virtual land".  Meanwhile, the values of the surrounding lands, including empty lots, have SKYROCKETED BY PROXY, the LAND VALUE TAXES levied on which are now a cost-prohibitive lava-hot potatoes for all but the most well-healed of *landowner-developers* who do LVT collection of rents for the state, no sweat off them at all.  In other words, a State/Landowner/Developer Partnership RACKET.  That is what is meant by the state's financial interests being "aligned" with [CERTAIN] market participants' financial interests, as the entire landscape becomes a compact, urban renters' HELL.

----------


## Roy L

> But Lincoln said that if he could keep the union together without abolishing slavery he would do so.  So that tells us that the war was not about human rights.


No, it just tells you what he said his priorities were.  He certainly knew that it was only a matter of time before slavery would be abolished anyway, and he considered the secession of the Confederacy too high a price to pay for the delay.



> We are the only nation that needed a civil war to abolish slavery. Everybody else managed to accomplish it with economic incentives.


No, countries typically needed legal prohibitions, too, and some countries still HAVE slavery.  The reason slavery persisted so long in the USA was that the landowners still thought they needed slavery to keep the landless in a condition of slavery.  But the good land had already all been taken up, so owning the land was enough to enable them to keep the landless effectively enslaved, as the landowners of Europe had been doing for centuries.  Read and learn:

_"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."_
From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885. Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.



> So you're wrong on this point.


Don't be ridiculous.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> No, countries typically needed legal prohibitions, too, and some countries still HAVE slavery.


Well, tell that to the choir here, Roy, as our country is one of them, and needs a legal prohibition against itself for practicing slavery. Property, land and other taxes on actual human beings are proof of that. 




> Read and learn:


Here's where Roy quotes hearsay of hearsay.  This is Henry George quoting George M. Jackson who is claiming that a former slave told him:




> 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.'


...which, of course, would have been soothing music to the tired ears of many in the South who were licking fresh wounds.

He goes on to claim that the the former slave said: 




> The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change.


Because, as we know, former slaves talked like that way, using words like "contented".




> They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery....'


Which of course one would expect plantation owners in the South, who are among those licking their wounds, to say about the War of the Northern Aggression - which they would teach their children to hate for generations, even until now.  Why, of course they would say something like "How foolish it was in us"




> '...We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.'


Which is too stupid for words, as it implies that the entire civil war was fought over slavery, and was all about saving a little bit of money. 

*"Oops! ::: slapping forehead ::: I could have had a slavery-free enslavement V8!"*

That reminds me of Democrats who try to sound like Republicans, or Roy trying to imitate landowners.  Like, "Hey, don't tax me, because I just want to continue not being a caring and decent human being, because I only like greedy things that are all about me!"

That quote by George M. Jackson screams staged and contrived. One big steaming pile of suspect crap.  Even IF there was a former slave who said anything REMOTELY like what was quoted (and I don't believe any did), put yourself back in that time -- back into a time of anger and bitterness toward all blacks in the South, and the rise of the KKK, and system oppression like never before.  You would have heard very little in that time that wasn't conciliatory.  Anything to tame the beast -- especially a beast still of some means, and in power, like George M. Jackson.

And WHO was that letter addressed to? Hmmmm....


In one of Damon Wayans acts he describes the position he and many other prominent successful black men get put in by interviewers:

*INTERVIEWER:* "Now that your rich, and now that you have made all of this money, and we're not counting. I just want to ask you this question.... Is there racism in America"?
*DAMON WAYANS:* "No suh.... If'n dey is I ain't seen none!"

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Here's where Roy quotes hearsay of hearsay.  This is Henry George quoting George M. Jackson who is claiming that a former slave told him:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> He goes on to claim that the the former slave said: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, no he doesn't.  Learn to read, Steven.  You'll note that that portion does not appear within quotation marks.  That was Jackson's appraisal of the situation.

The funny thing is, one could write this off as a simple mistake on your part, but to make that mistake, you had to believe that this Mr. Jackson was attempting to fabricate an account of a slave, and in doing so, came up with one sentence that seeks to capture the negro dialect, but suddenly in the second sentence, forgot to do so.  And not only that!  You had to believe that you're the first person to realize this!  

The need to find a way to avoid learning inconvenient facts is a powerful motivator indeed.




> They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery....'
> 			
> 		
> 
> Which of course one would expect plantation owners in the South, who are among those licking their wounds, to say about the War of the Northern Aggression - which they would teach their children to hate for generations, even until now.  Why, of course they would say something like "How foolish it was in us"


Indeed.  They sent their sons to battle and die, yet after slavery, they got labor cheaper.  In terms of racism, they were no longer legally obliged to keep them fed and clothed once they were unable to work: they could simply kick the negroes off their land.




> Which is too stupid for words, as it implies that the entire civil war was fought over slavery, and was all about saving a little bit of money. 
> 
> *"Oops! ::: slapping forehead ::: I could have had a slavery-free enslavement V8!"*


Well, we are talking about pro-slavery people here.  No one taught them the basics of land economics.  Even if someone had tried, they probably would have refused to learn, like you do.




> That reminds me of Democrats who try to sound like Republicans


LOL, now that's a laugh.  Anyone can constantly bellow "me hates gubmint," but why would anyone want to?




> or Roy trying to imitate landowners.  Like, "Hey, don't tax me, because I just want to continue not being a caring and decent human being, because I only like greedy things that are all about me!"


Most can't trace cause to effect.  But once it's been traced for them, the continued support for evil can mean little else.  The fact is, people don't want to know that they don't rightfully deserve wealth they've been collecting; many will choose to find ways of avoiding such knowledge.  You've devoted your life to it, quite obviously.




> That quote by George M. Jackson screams staged and contrived. One big steaming pile of suspect crap.  Even IF there was a former slave who said anything REMOTELY like what was quoted (and I don't believe any did), put yourself back in that time -- back into a time of anger and bitterness toward all blacks in the South, and the rise of the KKK, and system oppression like never before.  You would have heard very little in that time that wasn't conciliatory.  Anything to tame the beast -- especially a beast still of some means, and in power, like George M. Jackson.
> 
> And WHO was that letter addressed to? Hmmmm....


Henry George.  Duh.  This man had come across George's work, and sent him a letter when he saw the effect George described in action.

----------


## awake

> Every informed person is aware that there are good and bad taxes, and every honest, intelligent and informed person is aware that LVT is one of the good ones.  Google "Pigovian tax" and start reading.
> 
> "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...."
> 
> "Infantile" would describe the "meeza hatesa gubmint" morons.
> 
> ??  ROTFL!!  Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the stupidest and most dishonest lying sack of feudal propertarian $#!+ in the whole Austrian School, and that is saying something.  Virtually every sentence he writes is a fallacy, a red herring, a false and unsupported assertion, or a lie.
> 
> People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a non sequitur.
> ...



Lol...I was wondering if you would actually try to refute Hoppe or simply attack him personally. To be truthful I thought you would do the latter; and you did. Since you did not refute one damn point with any of your "plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary". I will take your rant for what it is: a concession of the debate. When all you have is name calling and insults, it means you have no case to be made at all.

"Lie, lie ,lie, Flat-out lie, meeza hatesa gubmint".

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Henry George.  Duh.  This man had come across George's work, and sent him a letter when he saw the effect George described in action.


In other words, he was a member of George's choir, who sent him a trite, cheesy testimonial letter of encouragement.  

I stand by my reading (quotes break notwithstanding), the whole quote, complete with implausible hearsay, sounds utterly contrived.  Pure pabulum for the utterly credulous.

----------


## Roy L

> Lol...I was wondering if you would actually try to refute Hoppe or simply attack him personally. To be truthful I thought you would do the latter; and you did.


I refuted him in detail and you know it.  I also identified the fact that he is a grotesquely stupid and dishonest lying feudal propertarian sack of $#!+, but that was only one short paragraph out of many.

If the Austrian School had any shame (they don't) they would be ashamed of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.



> Since you did not refute one damn point with any of your "plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary".


I refuted every substantial claim he made, and you know it.



> I will take your rant for what it is: a concession of the debate.


BWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!



> When all you have is name calling and insults, it means you have no case to be made at all.


That's not all I had; you know it; the great majority of what I wrote precisely identified the factual and logical deficiencies in Hoppe's "argument."  You *know* this.  You are just lying about it.



> "Lie, lie ,lie, Flat-out lie, meeza hatesa gubmint".


What else can one say about bald lies?

----------


## Zippyjuan

When in doubt, call the other person a liar or names like "grotesquely stupid and dishonest lying feudal propertarian sack of $#!+, " is usually an indicator of being unable to offer any proof or evidence to support your claims.   The term "liar" (or some form of it) appears in nearly every reply. 

OOps. Said I was no longer going to respond and encourage the LVT threads to continue.   I guess I lied too. 




> What else can one say about bald lies?


Get a wig?

----------


## Roy L

> When in doubt, call the other person a liar or names like "grotesquely stupid and dishonest lying feudal propertarian sack of $#!+, " is usually an indicator of being unable to offer any proof or evidence to support your claims.


Not when it is accompanied by exactly such proof and evidence, it isn't.



> The term "liar" (or some form of it) appears in nearly every reply.


That's because the only way to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil is by lying.  Those who choose to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil by attacking LVT therefore always have to lie.  As this and all the other threads where LVT has been discussed prove.



> Get a wig?


Thanks for agreeing that there is no way to respond to bald lies other than by identifying them as such.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> In other words, he was a member of George's choir, who sent him a trite, cheesy testimonial letter of encouragement.  
> 
> I stand by my reading (quotes break notwithstanding), the whole quote, complete with implausible hearsay, sounds utterly contrived.  Pure pabulum for the utterly credulous.


In other words, you simply refuse to believe it, for no particular reason.  Well, that is your modus operandi.

----------


## Roy L

> Well, tell that to the choir here, Roy, as our country is one of them, and needs a legal prohibition against itself for practicing slavery. Property, land and other taxes on actual human beings are proof of that.


Garbage.  Slavery is labor compelled by force, like the labor the landless must perform for the unearned profit of landowners or die of starvation.  Being required to pay for what you take is not slavery, stop lying.



> Here's where Roy quotes hearsay of hearsay.  This is Henry George quoting George M. Jackson who is claiming that a former slave told him: 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.'
> 			
> 		
> 
> ...


No, he doesn't, Steven.  You just made a fool of yourself again.  Anyone can verify that that statement was Jackson's, not the slave's.  YOU EVEN QUOTED the close-quote after, "father."



> Because, as we know, former slaves talked like that way, using words like "contented".


Incredible.  Your hatred of liberty, justice and truth has reached such a fevered pitch that you will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.



> Which of course one would expect plantation owners in the South, who are among those licking their wounds, to say about the War of the Northern Aggression - which they would teach their children to hate for generations, even until now.  Why, of course they would say something like "How foolish it was in us"


Being more honest and intelligent than you, yes, they would.



> Which is too stupid for words, as it implies that the entire civil war was fought over slavery, and was all about saving a little bit of money.


It was fought over secession, but secession was only a issue because of slavery.



> *"Oops! ::: slapping forehead ::: I could have had a slavery-free enslavement V8!"*


Yep.



> That reminds me of Democrats who try to sound like Republicans, or Roy trying to imitate landowners.  Like, "Hey, don't tax me, because I just want to continue not being a caring and decent human being, because I only like greedy things that are all about me!"


Sounds about right.



> That quote by George M. Jackson screams staged and contrived. One big steaming pile of suspect crap.


Because you cannot permit yourself to know the truth.



> Even IF there was a former slave who said anything REMOTELY like what was quoted (and I don't believe any did),


Then you are a fool and a historical ignoramus.  The ineffectiveness of emancipation in ameliorating the material condition of the former slaves -- such as the uniform and chronic destitution of black sharecroppers -- was widely remarked at the time, and considered quite a baffling mystery.  George's analysis showed why it was inevitable.



> put yourself back in that time -- back into a time of anger and bitterness toward all blacks in the South, and the rise of the KKK, and system oppression like never before.  You would have heard very little in that time that wasn't conciliatory.  Anything to tame the beast -- especially a beast still of some means, and in power, like George M. Jackson.


Saying you were better off as the beast's slave sounds pretty conciliatory to me.

----------


## Roy L

> In other words, you simply refuse to believe it, for no particular reason.


He has an excellent reason for refusing to believe it: he knows it proves his beliefs are false and evil.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> He has an excellent reason for refusing to believe it: he knows it proves his beliefs are false and evil.


Yeah, my bad: I should have said "with no legitimate justification."

----------


## DamianTV

Wow.  Not much reputation love in this thread...

----------

