Land value taxation?

[Lamp]

What are your opinions on the single taxers and land value taxation and is it moral?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

 

[oyarde]

I am opposed to all property tax of any kind .

 

[Origanalist]

NOOOOOOOOoooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Suzanimal]

The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses. When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of the community, then will the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and intelligence; and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then, will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return.

— Henry George, Progress and Poverty, Book VIII, Chapter 3

 

[Dr.3D]

Why is it that people keep coming up with schemes to rob others of their property?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

It is a lot harder to hide a plot of land and structures than an income. The ease at which government can look over property along with property taxes unavoidable enduring nature make it the worst form of taxation IMO.

 

[Dr.No.]

It is a lot harder to hide a plot of land and structures than an income. The ease at which government can look over property along with property taxes unavoidable enduring nature make it the worst form of taxation IMO.

That is true. In the time of the founders to the Civil War, many states relied on property taxes to get revenue. With the modern monetary system and everything on paper, taxing income became possible.

 

[Iowa]

nopes

 

[MallsRGood]

It is a lot harder to hide a plot of land and structures than an income. The ease at which government can look over property along with property taxes unavoidable enduring nature make it the worst form of taxation IMO.

On the contrary, that's a selling point for this form of taxation.

The easier a tax is to evade, the higher will be the total tax burden.

Suppose the state wants $100 billion to finance some program and they can collect it by a land tax or an income tax. The income tax is easier to evade, and so costs more to collect. Suppose that, to collect $100 billion by income tax, the state must spend $5 billion (paying the many officials required for enforcement); whereas, to collect $100 billion by land tax, the state need only spend $1 billion (to pay the relatively few officials required for enforcement). The enforcement costs must themselves, sooner or later, be paid for through taxation (remember, the state has no wealth of its own; when you "stick it to the state" by making them spend more money to enforce their laws, you're actually sticking it to the taxpayer). So, the total burden with the easier-to-evade tax is $105 billion, while the total burden for the harder-to-evade tax is only $101 billion.

Which is better? Paying more tax or paying less tax? (rhetorical question)

A land tax also has the advantage of much lower compliance costs for taxpayers.

The tens of billions spent every year filing federal income taxes could be reduced to a pittance.

As to the level of taxation required, suppose we had a minarchist state, which would require about $300 billion/year in revenues.

The total land value in the US is about $40 trillion, so a 0.75% land tax would suffice.

The owner of a 150k home would pay $1125 (much less than existing property tax in most places).

 

[Superfluous Man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Your threads are getting really annoying.

Do you have something to say, or just post a link without comment?

 

[Lamp]

I'm going to ignore that. I think I have a right to be "annoying" if I want to without me even knowing whats "annoying" in the first place. Nobody asked you to respond.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I'm going to ignore that.

Are you?

Or, will you instead edit the OP to add a question about what our opinion of land value taxation is?

Oh look, it was the latter.

 

[Lamp]

Hmm?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

NOOOOOOOOoooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

One "O" for each page of the last LVT thread?

You're gonna need a lot more Os.

 

[Dr.3D]

One "O" for each page of the last LVT thread?

You're gonna need a lot more Os.

We just got rid of O and now we are on to T.



Glad we didn't have to go back to C.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

On the contrary, that's a selling point for this form of taxation.

The easier a tax is to evade, the higher will be the total tax burden.

Suppose the state wants $100 billion to finance some program and they can collect it by a land tax or an income tax. The income tax is easier to evade, and so costs more to collect. Suppose that, to collect $100 billion by income tax, the state must spend $5 billion (paying the many officials required for enforcement); whereas, to collect $100 billion by land tax, the state need only spend $1 billion (to pay the relatively few officials required for enforcement). The enforcement costs must themselves, sooner or later, be paid for through taxation (remember, the state has no wealth of its own; when you "stick it to the state" by making them spend more money to enforce their laws, you're actually sticking it to the taxpayer). So, the total burden with the easier-to-evade tax is $105 billion, while the total burden for the harder-to-evade tax is only $101 billion.

Which is better? Paying more tax or paying less tax? (rhetorical question)

A land tax also has the advantage of much lower compliance costs for taxpayers.

The tens of billions spent every year filing federal income taxes could be reduced to a pittance.

As to the level of taxation required, suppose we had a minarchist state, which would require about $300 billion/year in revenues.

The total land value in the US is about $40 trillion, so a 0.75% land tax would suffice.

The owner of a 150k home would pay $1125 (much less than existing property tax in most places).

I do agree with what you are saying. I think what conclusion one comes to on LVT then depends on the individual's desires for a non-voluntary-government's efficacy. LVT is the minarchist's embracement of immorality. Much like the socialist who actually embraces the states ownership of resources and the means of production, rather than one who 'brainlessly' declares themselves a socialist not knowing the immorality of what they are saying. There is no room for compassion in LVT. The 90 year old trying to live their last days pleasantly is treated the same as the middle aged with functional bodies, both as livestock with which to extract resources from. I am no fan.

 

[PursuePeace]

Me, at the mere mention of property tax:

 

[MallsRGood]

There is no room for compassion in LVT. The 90 year old trying to live their last days pleasantly is treated the same as the middle aged with functional bodies, both as livestock with which to extract resources from. I am no fan.

That's not unique to property tax though.

For any tax, non-payment risks loss of your house, or whatever other assets you may have.

And, for any tax, one could exempt the elderly if one were so inclined.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

That's not unique to property tax though.

For any tax, non-payment risks loss of your house, or whatever other assets you may have.

Fair enough. That's why I'd 'support' a tax easier to avoid then one harder to avoid. Indeed, any instance of taxation or instance of punishment for not paying taxes are equal whether they originate from LVT or income or consumption.

And, for any tax, one could exempt the elderly if one were so inclined.

I think it would be the more morally decent thing to do but morality is not the concern of an individual setting a tax policy. Creating loopholes just creates ways to avoid the taxes. And I don't think it is fitting to the mentality-- or to the operation-- of a confident government who is of the mindset that 'we need to extract X resources, and so we will'. It seems like the only reason to exempt the elderly would be to 'look good to the people' and may result in harming it's ability to draw the resources it supposes it needs to draw.

 

[shakey1]

To be taxed year after year for property that you own smacks of paying rent.