Land value taxation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My late 2cents: Yes, it is moral -- certainly more moral than other revenue devices that predominate today. Also, a device of this kind, whether employed in traditional communities under local governments, or private contractual communities, is a necessity for a functioning, free, and just economy.
 
NOOOOOOOOoooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Beat me to it. Plus rep - almost. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again.
 
My late 2cents: Yes, it is moral -- certainly more moral than other revenue devices that predominate today. Also, a device of this kind, whether employed in traditional communities under local governments, or private contractual communities, is a necessity for a functioning, free, and just economy.
Necessary? Not so. It's like saying theft is necessary. "You government folks need to learn to pay for your own damn government and leave the rest of us alone". -Thomas Jefferson
 
People who reflexively oppose the Georgist idea (as I did for years, on the quest for the mythical "allodial title" or whatever form many libertarians and constitutionalists suppose to confer the absolute, inalienable right to own unlimited land with no tax or fee) should take the time to research what the great classical liberal economists / philosophers including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, and John Locke thought about the rightness of using land as a revenue source for public/common goods, or the "absoluteness" of the claim of an individual to appropriate land with no obligation to the greater good.
Heck, just look at the revenue clause in the Articles of Confederation.

They should also research what Milton Friedman, William Buckley Jr., and Albert Jay Nock had to say about the issue.

I think the choice really comes down to this. We can either a) use LVT or a similar method to stop speculation in land (which makes a free market economy impossible), and to replace destructive taxes, or

b) just accept always having blight and underdevelopment in our towns and cities, severe economic inequality, an anemic free market undermined by speculation, a boom-bust economy, an oppressive welfare state, and .... massive taxes on our productivity.
 
People who reflexively oppose the Georgist idea (as I did for years, on the quest for the mythical "allodial title" or whatever form many libertarians and constitutionalists suppose to confer the absolute, inalienable right to own unlimited land with no tax or fee) should take the time to research what the great classical liberal economists / philosophers including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, and John Locke thought about the rightness of using land as a revenue source for public/common goods, or the "absoluteness" of the claim of an individual to appropriate land with no obligation to the greater good.
Heck, just look at the revenue clause in the Articles of Confederation.

They should also research what Milton Friedman, William Buckley Jr., and Albert Jay Nock had to say about the issue.

I think the choice really comes down to this. We can either a) use LVT or a similar method to stop speculation in land (which makes a free market economy impossible), and to replace destructive taxes, or

b) just accept always having blight and underdevelopment in our towns and cities, severe economic inequality, an anemic free market undermined by speculation, a boom-bust economy, an oppressive welfare state, and .... massive taxes on our productivity.
We've had this discussion a bunch oftimes, bro. There's nothing reflexive about our rejection of LVT.Please see the zillion other threads on this.
 
People who reflexively oppose the Georgist idea (as I did for years, on the quest for the mythical "allodial title" or whatever form many libertarians and constitutionalists suppose to confer the absolute, inalienable right to own unlimited land with no tax or fee) should take the time to research what the great classical liberal economists / philosophers including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, and John Locke thought about the rightness of using land as a revenue source for public/common goods, or the "absoluteness" of the claim of an individual to appropriate land with no obligation to the greater good.
Heck, just look at the revenue clause in the Articles of Confederation.

They should also research what Milton Friedman, William Buckley Jr., and Albert Jay Nock had to say about the issue.

I think the choice really comes down to this. We can either a) use LVT or a similar method to stop speculation in land (which makes a free market economy impossible), and to replace destructive taxes, or

b) just accept always having blight and underdevelopment in our towns and cities, severe economic inequality, an anemic free market undermined by speculation, a boom-bust economy, an oppressive welfare state, and .... massive taxes on our productivity.

Is speculation in land not the free market?
 
Fess up goddamn it.

Who are you a sock puppet of?

I didn't know. That's why I asked back then:mad:

Moreover you just found this thread now. Its been 5 months so far. Couldn't you have came up with an answer 5 months ago instead of quoting me at 9:25 in the night with the most repetitive shit possible you geriatric fuck? I have dick jockey John Locke avatar posing Capt Unclefucker sending me assholish retorts through the rep system night and day I don't need your shit.

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
What are your opinions on the single taxers and land value taxation and is it moral?

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

Georgism as an ethical theory is all wet, but the single, land value tax is the best (least bad) tax for a minarchist state.

It is extremely efficient; if one must pay tax, at least let us not pay additional tax to pay inefficient, inept taxmen.

Presently, income tax compliance (mostly corporate) costs ~$500 billion: with a B.
 
Georgism as an ethical theory is all wet, but the single, land value tax is the best (least bad) tax for a minarchist state.

It is extremely efficient; if one must pay tax, at least let us not pay additional tax to pay inefficient, inept taxmen.

Good to know. I suppose that is because it does not reduce the incentive to work for relatively high income owners who live on land with few natural resources so much as the income tax.
 
Bullshit, you're no more a 15 year old Hindoo ex-pat, with an unhealthy anime obsession, living in Toronto, than I am the man in the fucking moon.

You're fake news; false as silicon tits.

Blow me, whoever you are.

Blow yourself "man in the room". Really choke on the tadpoles right there! Savor the flavor! Why don't you break your neck in the process? I can't be two things at the same time as your senile ass is implying.
 
Last edited:
Good to know. I suppose that is because it does not reduce the incentive to work for relatively high income owners who live on land with few natural resources so much as the income tax.

Its effect on incentive is a matter of empirical evidence, which I don't have.

What's appealing about the "Georgist" land value tax, a priori, is that it virtually eliminates the IRS and the like.

The concept is that property owners self-asses their property, but them must sell at their self-assessed price should anyone offer.

No taxpayer salaried assessors required, no G-men, and fair.
 
Blow yourself "man in the room". Really choke on the tadpoles right there! Savor the flavor! Why don't you break your neck in the process? I can't be two things at the same time as your senile ass is implying.

I'd have paid you little mind, until you shot your stupid mouth off in Working Poor's prayer request thread for her ill husband.

I've got my eye on you...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top