Recent content by MattintheCrown

Yep. Many of your posts opposing LVT are so absurd that they don't parse. To the extent you can even be understood, you propose a system where no one has any rights, and must purchase their very right to exist from some landowner.

One need but glance at the absurdities contained in your posts for proof, Steven.

Sigh. The state doesn't use land for its personal gain. The state is an instrument of society. It's supposed to represent its constituent members.

Tax revenues. The state.

Sure. Many LVT proponents believe the government should pay the LVT on government-owned land. That way, citizens can weigh the costs and benefits of such endeavors.

Once again, I don't know what you're trying to say. No, it's just a common-sense rule, and one similar to the individual income-tax deduction. Of course, no one has proposed the state "control" land allocations, and that's just something you made up, because you have no arguments. How is that...

Steven's been comprehensively demolished at every turn. You know you would to, so you avoid it. Simple.

Because land is provided by nature, and secured by government. Nope. Such infrastructure must be maintained. Nope. Citizens don't get a share of revenue, they get an exemption. Nonsense. They have the ability to do so, which ability you defined as a "right." I've already explained, as you...

Well, that's a helpful comment. As a fellow Hoosier, perhaps you can set me straight.

No, I'm not. What you wrote simply had nothing to do with what I said. Again, I simply pointed out that some portion of land value is attributable to the services and infrastructure provided by the government. Full stop. No, it charges current rents. Not really, because the state is a...

It wasn't obvious at all. Here's a hint, Steven: unlike you, we readers do not have access to your mind. Not really. It'd be better if you just rephrased it, because I still don't know what you're talking about. Profit has nothing to do with anything; I merely stated that a portion of land...

What? 1) No land 'belongs' to anyone. The privilege of privately holding land demands compensation to those thereby deprived its use. 2) Which private individuals? Why? 3) Does not parse. There's nothing artificial about it. You pay for the benefits you enjoy. What you're saying is like...

Right. And there was never any confusion on this point. In fact, it's been explicitly pointed out that land value is the product of three categories: 1) the natural qualities of the land itself provided by nature 2) the opportunities and amenities provided by society 3) the services and...

Because the state's interests and society's interests are better aligned under an LVT than under the current tax regime. Right now, the state taxes people based on what they provide to society; under the LVT, the state taxes people based on what they take from society. As we all know that...

Sigh. Only if they're on that land, obviously. Capital doesn't have locational advantages: locations do. Duh. Locations are part of unimproved land. In fact, they define unimproved land: what is the land in some specific location worth, minus improvements? Right, that's the point: because...