North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

[Travlyr]

You'll find I'm right about everything else, too.

And everyone else is a liar ... a big fat liar. LOL.

 

[Roy L]

Steven always spews a tsunami of stupid, dishonest garbage, and I don't have time to dissect and refute it all, so I'll just hit the most glaring fallacies, any one of which of course erases his whole "argument."

It's apropos.

It's a lie.

No, that's where common sense trumps the hair-splitting definition torturing semantics I refuse to play along with.

You refuse to use dictionary definitions, because they make it clear you are lying.

I could have said "collectivize/socialize ground rents", and I could differentiate, like EW would like, between titles and ownership - but that would be intellectually dishonest, a steaming pile of dung by any other name.

No, that is a lie. There is a very great difference between title and ownership: an owner has the right to benefit by something, and to dispose of it. You can have title and have neither of those rights. Allodial title, for example, does not include a right of disposal. And a trust has title, but the benefits go to the beneficiary, not the trust.

See how easily all your stupid lies are refuted?

The extent to which an entity has the power to charge rent for a thing, regardless of the rationale, motive, or what you label it, is the extent to which that entity assumes OWNERSHIP over that thing.

Nope. You are objectively and indisputably wrong, as proved above. A trustee has the power and a right to charge rent for something, but does not have the right to benefit by it, and does not own it. You know this, as I have proved it to you multiple times before. You just always have to lie about it. Always.

And when that OWNERSHIP EFFECT is total, as appropriated by the state, that OWNERSHIP OF THAT THING is collectivized.

Administration of possession and use, which all governments do wrt land, is not ownership, as proved above. Government is the trustee of land, not its owner, as it does not have the right to keep the rent.

You just always have to lie about that. Always.

No dip-shitty hair-splitty mental masturbation about possession or title, or the rationale or motives behind it, will mitigate the core essence of the fact that it is "collectivized land".

Calling facts silly names does not alter them, sorry.

They seek to encourage and violate Locke's Proviso with impunity, by the selling of Violation Indulgences to the highest bidders,

The universal individual exemption restore's Locke's proviso: everyone has free access to as much and as good as anyone else.

while treating EVERYONE, from the poorest to the richest (and ESPECIALLY the poorest) as if they were all nothing but bidders for privilege

Which they are.

- the very speculators (et al) who had acted beyond their rights (Locke's Proviso) and as a matter of privilege.

Gibberish.

There is nothing about LVT or proposals of its proponents that make a fundamental, principled (non-economic) distinction between residential, agricultural or commercial property, and yet the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL. Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced. Individuals. Private primary residences.

Irrelevant.

They are all treated as "equal violators" of Locke's Proviso, and without regard for the fact that the average landowner/homeowner with a single residence and a patch of green front and back is not part of that mix, has violated nobody's rights,

That is a flat-out lie. He is violating others' rights to liberty by forcibly preventing them from using the land they would otherwise be at liberty to use.

You just have to refuse to know that fact, as you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

and caused no violation of Locke's Proviso to begin with.

Lie. Others do not have access to as much and as good. You are just lying. You always have to lie. Always.

Whatever lands were bought up on speculation, secondary income or other purposes, could very well be subject to LVT. Not primary homes. Fuck factors of production

{^(|< stupid, evil, anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-economic lies.

- homes are a basic requirement for life itself,

Lie. Land is a basic requirement for life itself. People have lived without homes. They are called, "homeless," and they are homeless because private landowning has forcibly removed their rights to the liberty to provide themselves with homes.

and I do have respect for all first comers whose homes just HAPPEN to be located in an area that increases in value. That's their windfall, that belongs to them and nobody else.

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you. Why on earth would it be theirs? They didn't earn it.

I don't buy into the idea that the so-called "best lands" gobbled up by first-comers constitutes a violation to others,

But as a matter of indisputable objective fact, it does.

or that others have a valid equal "common" claim to the best lands. Not where primary residences are concerned. Period.

Assertion lacking any support whatsoever.

They are entitled not only to access to title and possession, but actual OWNERSHIP and SECURITY IN THAT OWNERSHIP- including the land rents on their primary residence, which I argue should be theirs as a matter of right.

You do no such thing. See your own words, above. You have offered, and will continue to offer, no argument whatsoever, merely your tsunami of unsupported claims.

Yes, just as a supreme dictator CAN be benevolent, just as he CAN be brutal and oppressive. With enough vision and integrity, and human wisdom and benevolence, every single political regime on Earth CAN work swimmingly well for everyone.

But LVT + UIE does not require such utopian conditions to work swimmingly well for everyone.

First principles first - and a taxing mechanism or spending intention is not a first principle.

But in the case of LVT, they are the necessary IMPLEMENTATION of first principles.

Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp ::: You weren't stupid enough to think that any general ideology or "movement" was an homogeneous blend of purely common thought and absolute agreement, were you?

Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp ::: You weren't stupid enough to think that broad agreement on an issue among the intellectual leaders of a general ideology or "movement" wasn't an index of their common thought and basic principles, were you?

No, they encourage it, in fact. Come one, come all, the more the merrier, fight/

Geoists do not encourage people to "fight" for land, stop lying.

compete amongst yourselves, and take as much of the available land as you'd like. It doesn't matter to a Georgist who possesses the land; whether it's a single Super-rich entity or many not-so-rich, as it's all just revenue to the taxing jurisdiction. May the highest bidder win, the state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered.

Right. And the LVT-funded state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered, too: on the side of the public interest.

Oh, are you back in an 18th-19th century mindset with regard to land, without a critical modern questioning thought, or are you specifically referring to AGRICULTURAL land?

Stupid, dishonest strawman and false dichotomy fallacy.

Because we have evolved. We're not an agrarian farming economy any more. I'm talking about primary residences -- HOMES -- setting aside even the now relatively scarce "family farms" for the moment. The basic primary need involved in these cases has NOTHING to do with soil fertility, and indeed most residential land gets NONE of its value from the fertility of the underlying soil. So much for that.

The issue is economic advantage, not soil fertility (except to the extent that soil fertility is relevant to economic advantage at any particular location). You know this. Why pretend you do not?

It doesn't matter to me whether it's speculators or the state causing opportunities for LANDOWNERSHIP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT to be withheld from free and natural persons, in violation of Locke's Proviso.

Self-contradictory claptrap. Free persons cannot coexist with landownership, which inherently violates Locke's proviso.

However, until the sharp distinction is made, as matter of first principles, between those acting as a matter of right and those acting as a matter of privilege,

You are the least capable of making such a distinction of anyone I know. Except for Helmuth, maybe.

I see LVT as just one more revenue stream, one more taxing scheme, and one more means of abuse (even abuse from the tyranny of the majority) with only the most tenuous of checks and balances.

But it has already been proved to you that it is not. LVT is THE ONLY POSSIBLE way to make government pay for itself rather than taking from producers.

...and the Earth he requires to live on,

Hunter-gatherers, nomadic herders, and the homeless all prove he has no such right to own part of the earth.

the land rents of which are his as a matter of right.

Nope. They cannot be his as a matter of right, as he would not have them without others to provide them.

Promises of LVT exemptions and dividends are not required where this exists as a right held in Common (meaning "inalienable to each and every individual"). You can stash the exemptions for these particular persons, because the privilege rule need not, and should not (IMO), apply to them. Then are the children (ALONE) free. All else can pay tribute as dictated or required.

Incomprehensible gibberish designed to erase the relevant facts from your brain.

Whether the Georgist interpretation matches with Locke or not, any land that is lived on as a primary residence is "being cultivated" in my mind, with a human crop, and rightfully considered property (my normative, in stark opposition to the Georgist/LVT normative that argues otherwise) -- right down to the land rents which rightfully belong to the owner of that home - that primary residence.

Claims entirely lacking supportive facts or logic. As usual.

Your normative, of course. Your idea of what SHOULD never (not "can never") be considered private property.

Because it inherently violates rights.

My normative is in contrast to you both where primary residences are concerned. I don't care if it's a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, an average home on a residential street, or a shack on a hilly acre in the Black Hills with single-wide and cars cinder-blocks in the front and backyard -- homes are sacred to me

I.e., you have no reasons, just emotions.

- no power to tax, zero power to destroy,

Please explain how taxing land would destroy it.

Thought not.

nobody wrongfully deprived of anything in the process.

Landowning inherently wrongfully deprives people of their liberty. You know this.

AND -- with all the privileged entities wanting into the market, NO NEED FOR REVENUE sourced from a basic human survival need.

The UIE takes care of the basic human survival need.

I love Thomas Paine, and don't give two shits about his view on ground rent for land

You want contradictions to be possible. But they aren't.

-- but ONLY as it applies to what I feel SHOULD BE the sovereignty of every individual in his or her home. Until that distinction is made, LVT is just another potential for widespread abuse and unintended consequences in the making.

Nothing but emotion.

Nothing more than a union between the state and the highest bidders on any and all lands - with their attitude that granny and her "unproductive hands" can go take a powder - she doesn't have rights,

You again choose to spew stupid, filthy lies. She has exactly the same rights as anyone, which get her free, secure access to enough good land to live on.

and no expectation for security in her home -

Another stupid lie. Her home is a product of labor and therefore rightly private property. The fact that the market may make it too expensive for her to pay for what she is taking from others does not mean she is not secure in her home. She has lots of happy alternatives: rent sleeping space to a roomer; rent out part of the land for gardens, RV parking, etc.; rent space to a neighbor for a business like a home daycare; etc.

- only a possible promise of exemptions or dividends from what is presumed to be privilege on hers and everyone's part.

It's not just a "possible promise." It's an inherent implication of adhering consistently to the first principles LVT is based on.

 

[Roy L]

And everyone else is a liar ... a big fat liar. LOL.

There is no other way to rationalize evil, sorry.

 

[Roy L]

I don't care if you spent 800,000$ to make some product, it can be worthless to me (price ergo ZERO), or it could be worth 5,000,000$ to me.

Neither number is a price until it trades for that amount.

I bet you think if X Company puts a sticker on their products of 5,000$ and not one ever sells that you think the price of the good is 5,000. /shakes head/

That is certainly a very common misapprehension.

But I bet you think if X would give $5,000 for a good and no one ever sells him one, or he would take $5000 for a good and no one ever offers him that much, then the value of the good is $5,000. /shakes head/

 

[redbluepill]

It's apropos. Their disagreements to me are like watching scraps between the left and right wing of the same party.

You have got to be kidding me. Georgists and socialists agree that the status quo was inherently unfair. That is pretty much where the similarities end. Socialists want government control/regulation over markets, taxes on just about everything, and government ownership of major industries. Georgists want a free market, the elimination of taxes on labor and capital and replace them with the LVT. I understand you being confused. It took a while for Georgist theory to sink in for me as well. Thanks to our statist school system we think its only capitalists vs communists. There is no alternative to the two ideas. You're either one or the other.

Would be a wonder how such a political party could hold together!

With your logic I guess Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and William F. Buckley Jr. are now officially socialists. Most of the real socialists HATED Henry George.

To be fair, there were a handful of socialists who admired Henry George. These people included Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, and George Bernard Shaw.

So how to explain George's appeal to both the political right and left? The truth is Georgism is neither capitalist nor socialist. It doesn't belong to any particular school of thought. Some socialists liked Georgism for its attention to economic justice. Some capitalists like it for the fact that it saw socialism as inefficient and promotes a free market.

So I stand by my statement that you are being dishonest in your equating Georgism with socialism. You have been through enough debates with us to know better.

I did read what they said. But I'm not a 19th century classical liberal,

Libertarianism is built on the foundation of classical liberalism. Unfortunately, modern libertarianism post-Nock has been perverted.

and I just don't happen to agree with those who advocated land in common and ground rents paid by everyone, regardless of status, to the state as a solution, any more than I agree with the problem I think they misidentified.

Because they're all pinko commies!

No, that's where common sense trumps the hair-splitting definition torturing semantics I refuse to play along with.

Common sense would tell you that Thomas Paine was not thinking of the state running the land when he wrote Agrarian Justice.

I could have said "collectivize/socialize ground rents",

Actually Frank Chodorov said "socialize the ground rent" yet he was a strong individualist. Did he want the government to own and control all property? Of course not. He simply wanted the landlord to return what belongs to the individuals of the community.

and I could differentiate, like EW would like, between titles and ownership - but that would be intellectually dishonest, a steaming pile of dung by any other name.

Never was intellectually dishonest about titles and ownership. One could "own" land just as people at one time could "own" slaves. But whether that ownership is just is the question.

The mechanics and the net effect is all I care about, and will leave disingenuous wordsmiths to their self-deceptive jerk circle. That's their great gobs of lumpy fun.

Like when they call Georgists socialists or communists. Yup.

The extent to which an entity has the power to charge rent for a thing, regardless of the rationale, motive, or what you label it, is the extent to which that entity assumes OWNERSHIP over that thing.

The rationale does indeed matter. If a court orders a man to pay another man restitution (lets say he damaged the second man's mailbox with his car and refused to pay for the damages), does that mean the government owns the first man's money? Think about it. Your notion is proposterous.

And when that OWNERSHIP EFFECT is total, as appropriated by the state, that OWNERSHIP OF THAT THING is collectivized. No dip-shitty hair-splitty mental masturbation about possession or title, or the rationale or motives behind it, will mitigate the core essence of the fact that it is "collectivized land".

Except the landowner can do whatever he wants with the land. Still a long way from collectivized.

"We propose to disturb no just right of property. We are defenders and upholders of the sacred right of property — that right of property which justly attaches to everything that is produced by labor; that right which gives to all people a just right of property in what they have produced" ~ Henry George, Thou Shalt Not Steal
http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/George_TSNS.html

No, I don't - I agreed with his usage of the word common as it related to INDIVIDUAL rights that happened to be "common" (equal and inherent to EACH - not a collectivized ALL).

Georgists are talking about individual rights when they speak of common rights. But you twist our words to mean rights granted by a government. Why don't you do the same for the classical liberals who used the same words and also called for ground rent?

"Freedom of speech is perhaps the best contemporary example of a common right, because it is still recognized, even among socialists, as an individual right."
http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

So there's no use in playing the fallacy of composition card, as if my agreement with one thing said by a man implies acceptance of everything stated by that same man. Locke was just a human and flawed like you, me and everyone else.

And I certainly don't agree with everything Locke or other classical liberals said either. But his proviso is directly related to how he viewed our rights to nature.

Wrong. They seek to encourage and violate Locke's Proviso with impunity, by the selling of Violation Indulgences to the highest bidders, while treating EVERYONE, from the poorest to the richest (and ESPECIALLY the poorest) as if they were all nothing but bidders for privilege - the very speculators (et al) who had acted beyond their rights (Locke's Proviso) and as a matter of privilege.

False. But you're not the first to bring this up...

"Q7. If a man owns a city lot with a $5000 building on it, what, under the single tax, would hinder another man, perhaps with hostile intent, from bidding a higher tax than the first man was able to pay, and thus ousting him from his building?

A. The question rests upon a misapprehension of method. The single tax is not a method of nationalizing land and renting it out to the highest bidder. It is a method of taxation. And it would not only hinder, it would prevent the unjust ousting of another from his building. The single tax falls upon land-owners in proportion to the unimproved value of their land; and this value is determined by the real estate market — by the demands of the whole community — and not by arbitrary bids. No one could oust a man from his building by bidding more for the land on which it stood than the occupier was paying; the single tax would not be increased in any case unless the land upon which it fell was in so much greater demand that the owner could let it for a higher rent. ... read the book"
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/misunderstandings.htm

There is nothing about LVT or proposals of its proponents that make a fundamental, principled (non-economic) distinction between residential, agricultural or commercial property, and yet the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL. Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced. Individuals. Private primary residences. They are all treated as "equal violators" of Locke's Proviso, and without regard for the fact that the average landowner/homeowner with a single residence and a patch of green front and back is not part of that mix, has violated nobody's rights, and caused no violation of Locke's Proviso to begin with.

Study after study has shown that most homeowners pay less under an LVT than under regular property taxes. Couple that with the elimination of all other taxes and the homeowners and poor old widows you claim to care about will be unburdened.

"Failure to adequately tax land speculators and monopolists is a big reason why taxes are so high on the rest of us. It is not just that we pay more because they pay so little; idle landholding is one of the main reasons why government is so expensive in the first place. It contributes to sprawl, blight, spiralling housing costs, loss of business and general economic decline. Residential speculation can be even worse, as it can destroy struggling neighborhoods."

http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/property/elderlyscam.html

homes are a basic requirement for life itself

And Georgists seek to end taxes on homes.

Yes, just as a supreme dictator CAN be benevolent, just as he CAN be brutal and oppressive. With enough vision and integrity, and human wisdom and benevolence, every single political regime on Earth CAN work swimmingly well for everyone. So what? First principles first - and a taxing mechanism or spending intention is not a first principle.

Blah blah blah.

I guess I can give up on my dream of decentralized government. No point when even the freedom-loving politician I vote for can revert to a brutal dictator. *rolls eyes*

Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp ::: You weren't stupid enough to think that any general ideology or "movement" was an homogeneous blend of purely common thought and absolute agreement, were you?

And they're all socialists in your mind aren't they?

No, they encourage it, in fact. Come one, come all, the more the merrier, fight/compete amongst yourselves, and take as much of the available land as you'd like. It doesn't matter to a Georgist who possesses the land; whether it's a single Super-rich entity or many not-so-rich, as it's all just revenue to the taxing jurisdiction. May the highest bidder win, the state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered.

Already proven wrong above.

Oh, are you back in an 18th-19th century mindset with regard to land, without a critical modern questioning thought, or are you specifically referring to AGRICULTURAL land? Because we have evolved. We're not an agrarian farming economy any more. I'm talking about primary residences -- HOMES -- setting aside even the now relatively scarce "family farms" for the moment. The basic primary need involved in these cases has NOTHING to do with soil fertility, and indeed most residential land gets NONE of its value from the fertility of the underlying soil. So much for that.

Its called an analogy. In reality location plays the biggest role in land values. Look at the prices in the cities. Obviously you missed the point, which is that land is not all equal in value.

I guess you weren't paying attention, then, as this is the one area where I happen to agree, in theory and principle, with Locke. It doesn't matter to me whether it's speculators or the state causing opportunities for LANDOWNERSHIP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT to be withheld from free and natural persons, in violation of Locke's Proviso. I said earlier that not all rights are absolute. Your right to free speech does not extend to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, or yelling into someone's ear through an amplifier at 130 decibels. So I would not consider it unreasonable for the people, the state, to distinguish between land that is owned as a matter of right or merely possessed as a matter of privilege. And that privileged status could very well extend to: secondary residential land, land that of any kind that is possessed by foreigners, corporations and other privileged entities, land that is merely held but not developed, for the sole purpose of withholding, etc.,.

Already addressed homeowners above.

And you ignore the fact that the LVT is in fact voluntary.

"Land value taxes need not even be strictly mandatory. If you as a landholder decline to return to our community the ground rent you appropriate from us, then we could simply disconnect you from our wires and pipes, and while you’re in arrears we could publish your name, address, and photo as someone whose property and person are excluded from the protections of our LVT-financed police and courts. If we catch you using any of our streets, parks, or other LVT-financed public goods, then you would owe the arrears on your parcel's land value tax, per the terms of the no-trespassing signs prominently marking those public goods."

http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/02/why-tax-land-value.html

However, until the sharp distinction is made, as matter of first principles, between those acting as a matter of right and those acting as a matter of privilege, I see LVT as just one more revenue stream, one more taxing scheme, and one more means of abuse (even abuse from the tyranny of the majority) with only the most tenuous of checks and balances.

Or one could view it as a path to reducing/eliminating other taxes, freeing up land so ALL could use it, and cutting down on bloated government. I happen to agree with Nock, Henry George was the capitalist's best friend.

I did ignore it, because I don't agree with it.

Then you are the one who is misrepresenting him, not Dan Sullivan.

Whether the Georgist interpretation matches with Locke or not, any land that is lived on as a primary residence is "being cultivated" in my mind, with a human crop, and rightfully considered property (my normative, in stark opposition to the Georgist/LVT normative that argues otherwise) -- right down to the land rents which rightfully belong to the owner of that home - that primary residence.

The crop, the improvements, the fruits of labor. What can be traced back to an original creator is property. Land is clearly separate from that. It has no creator but nature or God (whatever your beliefs are). But I know you're going to refuse to see the difference.

Your normative, of course. Your idea of what SHOULD never (not "can never") be considered private property. My normative is in contrast to you both where primary residences are concerned. I don't care if it's a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, an average home on a residential street, or a shack on a hilly acre in the Black Hills with single-wide and cars cinder-blocks in the front and backyard -- homes are sacred to me

And to me. Homes (as in houses and other improvements) are untaxed under a Georgist system.

no power to tax, zero power to destroy, nobody wrongfully deprived of anything in the process. AND -- with all the privileged entities wanting into the market, NO NEED FOR REVENUE sourced from a basic human survival need.

Nobody is being deprived of any rights under an LVT. Land ownership is NOT a basic human survival need. That notion is a joke.

I love Thomas Paine, and don't give two shits about his view on ground rent for land --

Too bad. There's a lot of wisdom to that statement.

 

[redbluepill]

Here are homes that people were evicted from by private organizations because they could not pay their debts:



Here are shanty towns in the USA. Populated by people who were evicted because they could not pay debts:

• The old widow only need to downsize, not join those in the shanty towns.
• Using LVT, the old widow only need to have her tax deffered until sale of property or death.

These shanty towns need not be there. The first video gives the solution.

Fred Harrison, Mason Gaffney, and Fred Foldvary. Three economists speaking the truth about the economy while Paul Krugman gets all the attention.

 

[EcoWarrier]

You have got to be kidding me. Georgists and socialists agree that the status quo was inherently unfair. That is pretty much where the similarities end. Socialists want government control/regulation over markets, taxes on just about everything, and government ownership of major industries. Georgists want a free market, the elimination of taxes on labor and capital and replace them with the LVT. I understand you being confused. It took a while for Georgist theory to sink in for me as well. Thanks to our statist school system we think its only capitalists vs communists. There is no alternative to the two ideas. You're either one or the other.

"George's blend of radicalism and conservatism can puzzle one, until it is seen as a reconciliation of the two. The system is internally consistent, but defies conventional stereotypes."
- Professor Mason Gaffney (US economist)
​

The right-wing conditioning, you see it here, is that of winner takes all. If you remotely talk about economic justice and "common wealth", their conditioning spouts lefty, pinkie commie, etc, etc. Geoism is apolitical. They can't see that and think it a political movement. The sad part is that none of them recognize that the economic system we have is defective, and want to continue as before.

To be fair, there were a handful of socialists who admired Henry George. These people included Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, and George Bernard Shaw.

George distanced himself from Socialists. Many say that was the downfall, as aligning with a socialist movement, which were taking off in the late 1800s, would have promoted the Single Tax and got it in. But, simple working men could readily understand taxing the rich more to implement socialist policies, which they would benefit from, to even out wealth distribution. Many could not get their heads around the Single Tax, so naturally leaned towards socialism.

Socialism was better equipped to rally support among the working classes, with the state taking on the role of supporting the poor by taxing the rich. Adopting Geonomics would have been supervising the economy in which everyone would have the opportunity to provide for their own needs.

The British socialist Labour party and Liberal party at times wanted to implement LVT and had it on the agenda. The Liberals near got it through.

Geoism is apolitical but it needs a political movement to implement it. Political isms have adopted it, but Geoism hasn't adopted a political ism.

So how to explain George's appeal to both the political right and left? The truth is Georgism is neither capitalist nor socialist. It doesn't belong to any particular school of thought. Some socialists liked Georgism for its attention to economic justice. Some capitalists like it for the fact that it saw socialism as inefficient and promotes a free market.

Many of the extreme right liked the idea of no Income Tax and rolling back the state. Socialists clearly liked the idea of economic justice and more money in workers pay packets and rolling back land speculators.

Everyone was a winner.

Henry George said "I have never advocated nor asked for special rights or special sympathy for working men. What I stand for is the equal rights of all men."

 

[Steven Douglas]

Actually Frank Chodorov said "socialize the ground rent" yet he was a strong individualist. Did he want the government to own and control all property? Of course not. He simply wanted the landlord to return what belongs to the individuals of the community.

That begs the question, "what belongs to the individuals of the community". And which individuals? What return? That is where hive-minded collectivists lose all critical thought and screw the pooch, because their focus is on the value of land rents owed to "the community", without respect or distinction of individuals and their individual rights, except as they define and qualify them. This stems from the socialistic "hive mentality" presumption that anything that benefits "the community" must automatically benefit each of the individuals therein.

Likewise, your characterization of socialized ground rents as an analogue to a government merely settling damage disputes between private individuals:

If a court orders a man to pay another man restitution (lets say he damaged the second man's mailbox with his car and refused to pay for the damages), does that mean the government owns the first man's money?

Again the same question is begged, with circular geoist logic, under the prior assumption that damage was in fact done for which restitution is now owed. That is a primary Georgist tenet, a plank of geoism regardless how it is called, but it is NOT universal. Think about it. Your notion is preposterous, as it places a taxing mechanism as a first order requirement, with the concepts of "productivity and benefit to the community" ABOVE HUMAN LIFE.

One of the realities facing all humans is their own mortality, and the energy they must consume and expend as individuals in order to survive - to say that they even exist. It is positively demonic when humans take advantage of this fact as rationale for adding their own ARTIFICIAL requirements to individuals on top of the natural God-given requirements, as if that was also just a basic requirement of life.

SHELTER is an absolute requirement for every human individual on Earth. Likewise land, or the surface required beneath every shelter, given that we can't all live as nomads, orbit in space or live on the ocean, or in mobile RV's. To that purpose and to that end (of housing and supporting life) access to and security in land is an absolute inalienable right of each individual. You see that as a qualified privilege of possession based on productivity or benefit returned to the community.

That is where LVT social engineers come across in my mind as clueless, unwitting sociopaths, because they view all landownership - and especially primary residential land - through the narrow lens of a "commercial investment", rather than a personal investment for individual consumption, survival & well being in their pursuit of life and happiness. They don't have this in mind, because it has nothing to do with their zealous drive to create "the perfect tax".

Many LVT proponents recognize this absolute requirement for "survival" element, but see this as a function of their own economic utilitarian sensibilities; like zoo-keepers contemplating the minimum space requirements for a particular animal to survive, which then can then be prescribed to every individual as a "universal value exemption".

Many LVT proponents include some form of "universal exemption" or "dividend" for individuals. But it's NEVER AS A FIRST PRINCIPLE AND NEVER AS A MATTER OF INALIENABLE RIGHT. It only comes, when and if it does, as a proposal or incidental possibility; an afterthought or bone thrown to the masses, entirely incidental and secondary to their FIRST PRINCIPLE - which isn't about establishing and guaranteeing land rights or absolute security in land to individuals, but rather guaranteeing LAND RENTS to the taxing jurisdiction - regardless how those funds are allocated.

Nevertheless, under LVT anyone whose wealth or productivity does not keep pace with land value tax requirements is naturally swept aside. The "universal individual exemption" (IF GIVEN, for whatever "value amount") provides the floor to which the "unproductive" may fall, even as the tax itself provides the mechanism that will naturally force them there. BY DESIGN. They're either compressed into cracker boxes in the inner parts of the city, to keep proximity with job opportunities, or they're swept aside to the outskirts. Wherever land is valued least, that's where the "unproductive" go.

None of that is even necessary. There are always those who will act as a matter of privilege, seeing land only as a commercial investment. There will NEVER be a shortage of those entities, foreign and domestic, public and private. Thus, for the sake of geoist's precious LVT, there should be no artificial requirement for life to be "productive" where primary residential land is concerned. Those who are living on land with NO thought of its commercial value (and ONLY IF RENTED OR SOLD) should be ENTIRELY UNAFFECTED by the covetousness of others.

Never was intellectually dishonest about titles and ownership. One could "own" land just as people at one time could "own" slaves. But whether that ownership is just is the question.

Not that you'll listen, but the incessant comparison of landownership (ANY LANDOWNERSHIP) with slave ownership is another area where geoists royally screw the pooch, and come off as certifiable moonbats. I hope you keep that analogy alive and well, personally, as it's a great tool for political LVT suicide. You're your own troll! Likewise, make Roy your leader and primary spokesman, PLEASE! He's LVT poison, true people/cause-repellent, for all the unwitting damage he does to his own precious cause.

 

[EcoWarrier]

http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/02/why-tax-land-value.html

I like this from above:

'For illiquid landholders, taxes could accumulate as a lien against the property, capped at its market value, so nobody need ever be taxed off the land they hold.' that has the potential to answer the 'little old lady in a big house' objection.

 

[EcoWarrier]

This by Mark braund is good:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/economics

"Henry George was no socialist, but he was a radical progressive who came as close as any economist before or since to identifying what it is about the market system that makes poverty inevitable. He believed the economic basis for minority wealth and privilege was incompatible with wider social justice, and argued for fundamental economic reform so that everyone at least had a fair chance to provide for themselves and their families.

George's solution was to collect the wealth that accumulates in land values and use it to fund the proper activities of the state. Such a land value tax eventually made it onto the statute books in Labour chancellor Philip Snowden's 1931 budget, but was never implemented because the social fallout from the great depression demanded a more immediate political response. The redistribution of wealth through the taxation of wages and profits, and ultimately the establishment of the welfare state, would instead become the cornerstones of progressive policies to tackle the failings of the market system."

 

[Danan]

I see. So, one can own people, numbers, letters of the alphabet, the earth's atmosphere, the sun, everything?

Give your silly head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall out.

I was obviously saying that you own your land like you own everything else you own nowadays.

Everything comes down to what you define as property. For me land is private property and other people's bodies are not. For you land is not ownable and I don't know where you stand on slavery since your view on the former subject is completely odd too, to me.

But when those in charge agreed on the position that slaves are not "people" and can be property they were treated exactly like property. Of course I do believe that every human being is a person and owns his own body and thefore slavery is disgusting.

But that example proves my point. Not whether or not something takes physicle labor to transform it into something with utility for other human beings decides if it is a good. Because if that were the case the 18th century slave owners could have argued that it took them real work to get all those people from Africa, ship them to America and make them "slaves".

What constitutes whether or not something is considered as property is only the beliefsystem of the general public. Once the beliefsystem regarding slaves changed it wasn't possible to own human beings anylonger all over the world. And slave owners couldn't enforce their claim on any person because no judge would agree with them anylonger.

Maybe in a few hundred years people looking back at us will be disgusted by the fact that we "own" (intelligent) animals. Maybe dolphins and apes will be considered "persons" then too, who knows. But today it's perfectly fine to own them. And it's not because we violate a universal philosophical truth today about what is right, it's because morality is subject of change.

What I basically want to say is that your view that only things transformed by human labor can be property is not a self-evident position. If you have a good claim on something, it is generally agreed on and you can defend your claim then it is considered your property at that time.

As libertarians we want a society with clear property rights. Only when property rights are clearly defined our philosophy (the non aggression principle) can work without any form of coercion. To me LVT is just a clever try to avoid the "problem" that taxation couldn't exist in such a society and every transaction had to be voluntarly. With LVT there could still be all forms of government spending since the "community" that creates the value from the land "nature" created has a "right" to collect taxes on it.

I don't buy that. "There's no such thing as society." What group of people constitutes that community that gave the land it's value? The people in my town? The people in my district/state/country? There is no good reason to exclude some people and include others on who has a right to benefit from the land and who doesn't.

Oh and how would it violate the principles of the LVT-theory if we would get rid of all taxes and install a LVT high enough to spend for everything the government is doing right now? I can't think of a logically sound reason that these taxes should be low. There is nothing in this theory that would ensure at least smaller government (let alone the preferable option of no government, which is impossible by definition under this theory). But that should be the whole point of every change aspire. In this concept the size of government is once again only determined by public discourse and through rule of majority (of people living in an arbitrarly bordered location).


And I also don't belief in national sovereignty so that's a mood point anyway. I belief in individual sovereignty.


I could also come up with a clumsy theory on why cars, homes, gold or any other good is in one way or another totally different from all other goods and can therefore not be owned (which has ultimately nothing to do with it). But I'd much rather focus on how to get rid of government than to give it new power.

 

[kahless]

The claim was not that an elderly widow might get thrown out of her home -- private landlords throw elderly widows out of their homes all the time, and evil anti-LVT liars see nothing wrong with that at all -- but rather that her home would be STOLEN by property tax authorities, and she would be put out into the street. I await a single documented case where that has EVER happened.

I await your documented case of an elderly widow's home being STOLEN and she being put out into the street by property tax authorities. One documented case. One.

Then it should be easy for you to provide it. But you haven't. And I don't think you will, either.

Still spewing your garbage. There is an entire market based on tax foreclosures, thousands upon thousands of cases, just check you county website you will find plenty. I know plenty of people whom this has happened to personally. I have even sat in on several of the county property tax auctions. I am living in a county that is in the top 5 highest property tax in the US, everyone who has not lost their home is scared of losing their home due to this.

What started out 10 to 20 years ago as property taxes between $1000 to $1500 is now anywhere between 8k to 18k in my county. This effects everyone, including being passed on to the renters and the raising the cost of goods at businesses in my community.

People like you disgust me, that you come in these forums and spew your lies about something that is seriously harming so many lives. You then keep posting denying something that is so common. It is not just making people homeless, evictions sometimes result in violence against those who refuse to leave the homes they paid for at the hands of government criminals you continue to defend.

Your posts advocating this kind of violence are vile and sickening to any one that wants to live free . You advocate forced submission to your authoritarian violent government.

 

[Roy L]

Still spewing your garbage.

That is a lie. Stop lying.

There is an entire market based on tax foreclosures, thousands upon thousands of cases, just check you county website you will find plenty.

Thank you for agreeing that the claim of property tax authorities "stealing" widows' homes and "putting them out into the street" was nothing but a stupid, evil lie.

I know plenty of people whom this has happened to personally.

No, you don't, stop lying.

I have even sat in on several of the county property tax auctions.

Please post the documented evidence that the property tax authorities STOLE some elderly widow's house and put her out into the street.

I am living in a county that is in the top 5 highest property tax in the US, everyone who has not lost their home is scared of losing their home due to this.

Lie.

What started out 10 to 20 years ago as property taxes between $1000 to $1500 is now anywhere between 8k to 18k in my county.

Please post documented evidence for that claim, which is laughable.

This effects everyone, including being passed on to the renters and the raising the cost of goods at businesses in my community.

Nope. Flat wrong. The kind of property value increase you are talking about is a result of land value increasing, and taxes on land value can't be passed on to renters. And it is not the high land value that causes prices to be high. It is the fact that vendors can sell goods for high prices in that location that makes the land value high.

People like you disgust me, that you come in these forums and spew your lies about something that is seriously harming so many lives.

It is refusal to know the relevant facts that is seriously harming so many lives. It is low property tax rates that result in people losing their homes, as Prop 13 proved in CA, not high property tax rates.

Why do you refuse to know the fact that the number of people losing their homes in CA in the last five years is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER than the number who were losing them before Prop 13 reduced property taxes and kept pushing them lower and lower?

Why do you refuse to know the fact that because property tax rates are so low, private mortgage lenders are dispossessing ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more homeowners than property tax authorities?

You then keep posting denying something that is so common.

I still await the documented evidence of property tax authorities stealing an elderly widow's home and putting her out into the street. Just one case. One.

It is not just making people homeless, evictions sometimes result in violence against those who refuse to leave the homes they paid for

Documented evidence that these incidents of violence are due to property tax seizures and not mortgage foreclosures....?

Thought not.

at the hands of government criminals you continue to defend.

Oh, stop lying. They aren't criminals. They are supervising liquidation of an asset to satisfy a legal debt.

Your posts advocating this kind of violence are vile and sickening to any one that wants to live free.

You can't live free when you have to pay a landowner for permission to live.

You advocate forced submission to your authoritarian violent government.

You've posted nothing but stupid, evil lies.

 

[EcoWarrier]

What started out 10 to 20 years ago as property taxes between $1000 to $1500 is now anywhere between 8k to 18k in my county. This effects everyone, including being passed on to the renters and the raising the cost of goods at businesses in my community.

Homes are being foreclosed every day. Roy asked for evidence of one because of non-payment of Property Tax. No one came up with one. It is laughable that Old Widow was brought of of the closet as a last ditch to justify the unjustifiable. Winston Churchill would laugh this off as the "Old Widow Bogey".

You clearly missed it. With LVT, as taxes on "land" are raised, other taxes are lowered, or eliminated. Taxes on the buildings and improvements on the land are eliminated. LVT as the Single Tax means no one pays any Income or Sales Tax. In Hong Kong they lowered Income and Corporation Tax substantially to make the place a world economic powerhouse. Look at real life examples. They could raise the tax on land high enough to eliminate at least Income Tax, which they really should.

These existing property taxes. How much in percentage is on the land? How much is on the buildings? The land under the house is LAND (and its resources) and the buildings are CAPITAL. Paying taxes on the building is as stupid as paying tax on your dishwasher (CAPITAL) each year.

Property tax only on the LAND and rated by its value makes a hell of a lot of sense. Then it is LAND tax not a property tax. It is the only fair way.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Homes are being foreclosed every day. Roy asked for evidence of one because of non-payment of Property Tax.

That isn't what Roy asked for at all. Were you not paying any attention at all? Anyone here can produce examples of homes that were sold at auction for a tax lien filed for non-payment of property taxes. Roy specifically asked for people to come up with a single documented case where a house was STOLEN (the operative word) by tax authorities. That was his lame attempt to drive the point home that a tax lien sale is based on a "legitimate" debt, and therefore not "theft" on anyone's part.

 

[EcoWarrier]

The Queen Could not be Told the Truth

When the Queen of England visited the London School of Economics in 2008, she asked a simple question about the looming economic disaster, "why did no one notice it coming?". Professor Garicano replied, "at every stage everyone was relying on someone else, and all thought they were doing the right thing". As modern economists use a collection of mangled economics the Queen could not be told the truth.

Economists 100 Years Ago Colluded to Distort Economics

A century ago a group of influential economists: John Bates Clark, Frank Knight, Francis Walker, Edward Seligan and Richard Ely, colluded to manipulate the building blocks of classical economics. They had an ideological agenda. The future they shaped is our reality. Their mission was clear, to protect the vital interests of the privileged few. To do so they had to conceal the unique qualities of the classical factors of production - LAND. The three factor of production are: LAND, CAPITAL and LABOR. These people merged LAND into CAPITAL, renaming economics neo-classical. This move dangerously distorted the economic system we all run by.

A century of economic disasters followed, with two world-wide crashes, that literally messed with our lives. Economics has been a tool for contorting our collective consciousness. The current economic crisis is an example to the pathetic state to which economics has been reduced.

Modern Economists are Confused

We handsomely reward economists to fine tune to the economy to keep it stable. When boom turns to bust they escape into mysticism. They claim, "occasional slow downs are natural and necessary features of a market economy". The people we trust to keep the economy on an even keel have no idea what makes an economy explode. Take the central bankers, they pontificated, moving interest rates up and down and manipulating the money supply. They didn't know what they were doing - it was all an illusion.

The problem lies in some of the theories invented by economists. They do not reflect the real world. They are fictions invented to explain an imaginary market economy. When the economy overheats the imaginary equations turn out to be useless.

Economists Admit Their Economic Models Do Not Work

The Daddy of all central bankers was Alan Greenspan, of the US Federal Reserve. He said, "the models do not forecast recession because the parameters are dominated by what happens in normal times when the economy is growing".

As the economy crumbled, He said to the US congress, "I discovered a flaw in the model which I perceived as a critical function structure which defines how the world works. I was shocked". Greenspan's victims are more than shocked, they are traumatized losing their homes and jobs.

In failing to raise the warning flags, Greenspan was not alone, economists at the Bank of England also failed to forecast the end of the business cycle. They confessed their economic models break down when the going gets tough. Rachel Lomax, deputy governor of the Bank of England confessed, "When it comes to quantifying the changes in credit conditions, our workhorse economic models still cannot help us very much".

If you were caught by surprise when the bottom fell out of the credit market, don't worry, you were in good company. Leading economists at places like the London School of Economics were also shocked. Professor Sir Charles Woodhart, served on the Bank of England monetary policy committee, he now admits that standard forecast economic models are "effectively pretty useless".

Here is an example of the nonsense that can be produced by economic theory. According to the British governments Property Valuation office in Jan 2008, land values will continue to rise until 2013. Six months later the economy had broken down. The graph has been erased from their web site.

Land Speculators Are the Biggest Gainers

Who gains from this intellectual mess? One groups of people reap spectacular rewards, property developers, land speculators all reap windfall gains from one asset that sustains us all, LAND.

In the good times when people go mad buying and selling properties, we lionise these developers. Yet all they doing is cashing in the on the land values others create. Take the case of a cluster of apartments adjacent to a prime brown field site. Their presence gives value to the adjacent site, yet the thousands of residents of the apartments will not share in the increased values they help create.

Banks Fuelled The Property/Land Bubble

Bankers around the world played their part in the economic crisis pumping up credit to fuel the property bubble. As land values rose bankers even created more money. This was a self inflated bubble of hot air. It had to burst.

Economists Who Know The Answers Are Supressed

For the past century economist have messed with our minds. All is not lost. A few economists have been stewards of the precious knowledge of how the economy works. The Nobel prize winning economist Bill Vickry and the Californian professor, Mason Gaffney. All voices of reason that have been suppressed.

We Need To Force Through Change To Eliminate Vested Interests

With all the global crisis's converging, mass unemployment, poverty, terrorism. It is time to make up our minds and stop playing the game that was rigged 100 years ago. If we do not challenge the vested interests that exploit people, all of us, the environment and future generations will pay the ultimate price. We have to oblige our elected leaders to deal with the realities on the ground.

In the end it is up to everyone to assume personal responsibility and restore common sense in the way we govern society.

 

[EcoWarrier]

That isn't what Roy asked for at all. Were you not paying any attention at all?

Your selective amnesia has set in again. You should get it sported. Roy wrote "I await your documented case of an elderly widow's home being STOLEN and she being put out into the street by property tax authorities."

 

[robert9712000]

I find it hard to believe a person claiming to be libertarian would support a property Tax since it contradicts the basic concept of the belief of what Libertarianism is.

libertarian (ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən)

— n
1. a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc
2. philosophy Compare determinism a believer in the doctrine of free will

— adj
3. of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian

The reason Property ownership is so important is because believing that you have the right to express yourself however you want has a couple of restrictions thus needing the necessity of out right ownership to be able to completely express yourself how you want.

The 2 Restrictions on Libertarianism are..

1. You dont have the right to hurt another person
2. Similar to the first,your freedom of expression is limited if it denys someone else there ability to freely express themselves.

To be able to freely express and do what you want without hurting another person or denying them there freedom to do what they want , means you need a space that is yours only of which you may express yourself and not hinder another person,thus leads to the only solution which is land ownership.

As soon as you introduce property tax you provide a means of denying someone the ability to do what they want.If they have paid off there property and want to live completely self sufficient they can't because property tax means they always need a source of income and can never truly be independent of society if they so chose.

Then you have the situation where elderly people who are too old to work can lose there home because there retirement payments arent enough to pay there property tax and they are then forced out of there house

 

[EcoWarrier]

I find it hard to believe a person claiming to be libertarian would support a property Tax since it contradicts the basic concept of the belief of what Libertarianism is.

A tax on the property, the CAPITAL, the building, is against Libertarians...and wrong. Taxing your house is like taxing your dishwasher. A tax on the land values is not a tax, it is reclaiming community created wealth. Not capturing this community created wealth leaves someone to free-load.

No one can live truly be independent of society, unless you are Robinson Crusoe. Those who want to live isolated within a community and pay nothing for what they receive are free-loaders.

Say a plot of land was bought for $100 many years ago. A House was built on it. The land and house is sold and the land value is $100,000. This should go to the community who created that value and wealth locked into the land, otherwise the land occupier is free-loading. Equally when someone dies the value in the land should be given back to the community. Of course the value in the CAPITAL, the building, the community does not want to know.

Or...easier, reclaim the value in the land each year via Land Valuation Tax (the word tax is a misnomer). Then we cane eliminate taxes on a person's production and purchases - which are 100% against freedom. He keeps all his wages. Much easier.

Then you have the situation where elderly people who are too old to work can lose there home because there retirement payments arent enough to pay there property tax and they are then forced out of there house

Laughable. The old Widow bogey as Winston Churchill called it. The misinformed, greedy, self-centered or just plain free-loaders, always wheel her out. Keep 'em rollin'.

Your definitions of libertarian did not state you have the liberty to free-load.

 

[robert9712000]

A tax on the property, the CAPITAL, the building, is against Libertarians...and wrong. A tax on the land values is not a tax, it is reclaiming community created wealth. Not capturing this community created wealth leaves someone to free-load.

No one can live truly be independent of society, unless you are Robinson Crusoe. Those who want to live isolated within a community and pay nothing for what they receive are free-loaders.

Say a plot of land was bought for $100 many years ago. A House was built on it. The land and house is sold and the land value is $100,000. This should go to the community who created that value and wealth locked into the land, otherwise the land occupier is free-loading. Equally when someone dies the value in the land should be given back to the community. Of course the value in the CAPITAL, the building, the community does not want to know.

Or...easier, reclaim the value in the land each year via Land Valuation Tax (the word tax is a misnomer). Then we cane eliminate taxes on a person's production and purchases - which are 100% against freedom. He keeps all his wages. Much easier.



Laughable. The old Widow bogey as Winston Churchill called it. The misinformed, greedy, self-centered or just plain free-loaders, always wheel her out. Keep 'em rollin'.

Your definitions of libertarian did not state you have the right to free-load.

If someone bought and paid for the land ,how are they a free loader?

I do not owe society money simply because i exist or because i use roads or other services. i pay for those through sales and income tax.

Your also misunderstanding what is value.The main reason land once worth 100 is now 100000 isnt because the community made it worth more, but because of inflation through the devaluation of the dollar.You need to look at purchasing power if you want to assign value to something or determine if something has gained value.