Robin Hood Tax ?

[Roy L]

Government just needs the right people eh?

No, you are again just lying about what I have plainly written, as always.

It needs to implement policies that actually fulfill its legitimate function of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Government is, and can never be but stupid, unfair, corrupt, and economically destructive.

That's clearly just another stupid, infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" whine from you, as the contrasts between Slovenia and Somalia, Switzerland and Swaziland, and Canada and Cameroon prove.

I reject your attacks on the foundation of civilization in property rights.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!

Read and learn, dumpling:

“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

What nice ideological company you keep: apologists for slavery.

The foundation of civilization is property in products of labor, not in land, as history proves so very conclusively. Hong Kong has NO private landowning, and it is not only highly civilized and prosperous, but routinely tops lists of the world's freest societies. The earliest foundation of Western civilization in Egypt's Old Kingdom ran on a land tax that came close to LVT, and collapsed after it abandoned that tax system. The great foundation of Western democracy and culture, ancient Athens, raised a large part of its public revenue by renting out common lands, as did Rome.

Nationalization of all land through taking of the total price of land purchase is simply land communism.

BWAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAAAAA!!

I guess that must be why KARL MARX HIMSELF called it, "capitalism's last ditch."

I guess that must be why dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates publicly urged the XSSR to retain land in public ownership as it transitioned from communist rule to a market economy.

You are really good at finding new ways to make a fool of yourself.

And once again you are not making any converts here.

You don't know that. Others may be more willing to think than you are.

You don't understand liberty at all...It shows in your 'we need government ' line.

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

Jefferson and the other Founders understood liberty, dumpling. You do not. When they wrote the Articles of Confederation, they made a LAND TAX the SOLE SOURCE of federal government revenue. If they had had the will to resist the landowner sabotage and greed that almost wrecked the union and resulted in the Constitution, the world would today be a far freer, fairer and wealthier place.

 

[Roy L]

Ah, right, all those histories about the ejection of the aboriginal Taiwanese are just fascist fictions designed to make LVT look flawed when implemented.

Quote and link...? Of course not. We've already seen your idea of supporting your claims: quotes of material that flatly contradict them.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Roy, would you and Eco mind very much confining the stench of LVT to the threads already hijacked?

 

[angelatc]

Roy, would you and Eco mind very much confining the stench of LVT to the threads already hijacked?

I suggested in another thread that we start reporting them for their relentless thread hijacking. It has no place in the movement - as it is certainly not a liberty position, but if they take it over to philosophy they can keep the anarchists amused.

 

[idiom]

Quote and link...? Of course not. We've already seen your idea of supporting your claims: quotes of material that flatly contradict them.

Typically the conversation has gone thusly:

Idiom: I Assert A occurred.
Citation 1: A Occurred.
Citation 2: A Occurred
Roy: Your Statements are contradictory and full of lies!!!!!!one

Sometimes you even support it with:

Roy: Yes A Occurred but...
Citation 1 cont.: A Occurred, B also occurred.
Roy: See you lied!!!11

 

[Zippyjuan]

It's not liberty from the government (liberty can't exist in a modern society without government), but from stupid, unfair, corrupt, economically destructive government.

That is a fabrication. All objections to LVT raised on this forum -- and everywhere else -- have been demolished, utterly.

It is the depredations of landowners that are theft and slavery in the name of the Great God Property, as already proved.

Changing what you tax does nothing to change what government does with the money or how they behave.

 

[awake]

How to demolish a LVT fanatic...see here

 

[Zippyjuan]

I think it is time to try to starve the beast- I quit feeding it for a while but was bored this weekend. Cheap entertainment.

 

[silverhandorder]

No no no keep feeding it I like your replies to him. Now if you grow bored with feeding him then that is another matter.

It seems the discussion about LVT is pointless since even if we had LVT we would argue whether we need government or not. Roy L and Eco would be demanding government and would be with democrats in that respect.

 

[idiom]

I don't know if anyone is familiar with shows like Babylon 5 or other shows about very large Space Stations...

These shows tend to portray 'realistic' economies, economies similar to earth ones.

LVT considers that these shows are highly unrealistic. Due to the lack of land, economies on very large space stations should be naturally much more Utopian due to nobody having any land to possess.

When you ponder this it clarifies how unintuitive the LVT theory is, despite its claims to be intuitive. A simple counter-factual makes it look stunningly mistaken.

Or more simply, look at Seasteading:



Again with nobody holding claim to natural resources, Seasteads would have no tax and automatically have stable utopian economies Ceteris Paribas.

 

[Roy L]

Changing what you tax does nothing to change what government does with the money or how they behave.

Yes, it does. If government has to spend money on things people want in order to get revenue, that's what it will do. Recovering the value government creates to pay for the things that create it aligns government's financial incentives with the public interest.

 

[Origanalist]

Yes, it does. If government has to spend money on things people want in order to get revenue, that's what it will do. Recovering the value government creates to pay for the things that create it aligns government's financial incentives with the public interest.

Nice inverted backwards somersault.

Impressive. (not)

 

[silverhandorder]

Yes, it does. If government has to spend money on things people want in order to get revenue, that's what it will do. Recovering the value government creates to pay for the things that create it aligns government's financial incentives with the public interest.

But there is nothing stopping government in LVT from spending on things people don't want.

 

[idiom]

When did the Government Start Creating Value?

Its the GVT now?

You should be taxed because the government gave you the money in the first place? If we got rid of the government then we could get rid of the tax.

The Government wouldn't be creating any value any more, so it wouldn't need tax.

 

[Roy L]

But there is nothing stopping government in LVT from spending on things people don't want.

True. Just as there is nothing stopping Ford from sending its new cars to the shredder.

 

[Roy L]

When did the Government Start Creating Value?

When it made the land within its jurisdiction more economically advantageous by its spending on desired services and infrastructure.

Its the GVT now?

Google "Henry George Theorem" and try to at least minimally inform yourself on the issue.

You should be taxed because the government gave you the money in the first place?

Is there something wrong with that idea that I'm not getting? Isn't that better than taking the money people have earned by their own productive contributions?

If we got rid of the government then we could get rid of the tax.

Yes, indeed. And live like Somalis and everyone else in the history of the world who has not had a government to secure their rights. Some feudal propertarian $#!+-for-brains are so stupid and dishonest, they actually cite Somalia as an example of the advantages of not having a government.

The Government wouldn't be creating any value any more, so it wouldn't need tax.

Correct. And the land would be worth as much as it is in Somalia. But landowners don't want that. They want government to tax other people so that they can pocket those taxes. So they disingenuously say, "I should not have to pay any taxes because we shouldn't have a government," because they know that not having a government is not an option. They thus continue to pocket other people's taxes.

 

[Roy L]

Nice inverted backwards somersault.

Impressive. (not)

How much less impressive, then, is your non-response?

You just have to refuse to know the facts, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

[Roy L]

I don't know if anyone is familiar with shows like Babylon 5 or other shows about very large Space Stations...

These shows tend to portray 'realistic' economies, economies similar to earth ones.

?? Joke, right?

Oh, no, wait a minute, you must be the author of that new book I've been hearing about, "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned by Watching Babylon 5."

LVT considers that these shows are highly unrealistic.

Duh.

Due to the lack of land, economies on very large space stations should be naturally much more Utopian due to nobody having any land to possess.

Oh, I don't know. They could always just have slavery instead of landowning. Not much difference -- and greedy, evil filth have to have SOME way to rob and enslave the productive.

When you ponder this it clarifies how unintuitive the LVT theory is, despite its claims to be intuitive.

Run that one by me again, but without the drugs.

A simple counter-factual makes it look stunningly mistaken.

...to the soap-bubble creatures from Planet Zondo.

Or more simply, look at Seasteading:

The surface of the ocean is also a natural resource (i.e., land, in economic parlance), though one with no current exchange value as it is so abundant and disadvantageous to use.

Again with nobody holding claim to natural resources, Seasteads would have no tax and automatically have stable utopian economies Ceteris Paribas.

The ocean's surface is a natural resource; but it is so economically disadvantageous even compared to desert, tundra or mountaintop land that it has no exchange value, and thus would not be taxed. The cost of making it habitable would tend to make such economies stable at a very low level without massive subsidization.

 

[Steven Douglas]

But there is nothing stopping government in LVT from spending on things people don't want.

True. Just as there is nothing stopping Ford from sending its new cars to the shredder.

The assumption there, of course, being that revenues collected are all on the basis of value given, and that government will want to give even more of that value in return so that it can get even more revenue in the future. In reality, government can successfully siphon value, as a parasite that does nothing but drain life blood from its host without giving much at all in return, beyond a heavier requirement for consumption.

To a parasite, "increased productivity" of a host is a natural result of an artificial requirement for increased energy consumption and output requirements of its hosts, who are put into an enhanced state of stress. But the "giving back" paradigm is convenient, because any successful adjustments that private individuals and firms make as a result of LVT will all be conveniently attributed to LVT, and existing infrastructure, in whatever condition it is in, as if government actually "gave" something in return.

Tapeworms consume nutrients that are taken in by their host. But even though they often kill their hosts, they manage to survive and propagate as a species. Do they give something in return? In a manner of speaking, yes, if we spin it thusly: The host must now work harder and increase its consumption beyond what the tapeworm can consume. It is a death spiral, of course, because as the host grows, so does its tapeworm. It is in this way that the tapeworm only inflicts a net drain on the life and energy of "less productive" bodies, who cannot consume enough for both tapeworm and themselves. The survival rate of the healthier hosts can be used as evidence that the tapeworm actually "gave back" something to more productive bodies, who prove "more productive" (to the tapeworms, and therefore more deserving, albeit from their perspective only).

So, Roy, by giving you tapeworms, I am actually giving you something. I am testing your productivity, and giving you added strength! So come, Roy, let me provide you with some added strength.

When it made the land within its jurisdiction more economically advantageous by its spending on desired services and infrastructure.

That's one of the most presumptuous of all the geo-collectivist lies: that economic opportunities and advantages can be attributed primarily to government services and infrastructure.

Google "Henry George Theorem" and try to at least minimally inform yourself on the issue.

The "Henry George Theorem" -- wherein a coincidental correlation is found between private land rents and the amount a government spends (not needs to spend), but only under certain conditions, if you hold the economy up to a certain light and view it "just so".

What the "Henry George Theorem" suggests is that there are two tapeworms with equal appetites in the economy. This may only indicate that the appetite of the government tapeworm only tracks evenly with the appetites of the private ones. In other words, the government may only be following suit, taking what it already sees the market will bear.

GeoVampires are not interested in relieving any hosts already afflicted (Roy's non-existent UIE bandaid notwithstanding). They are only saying, in effect, Let The Right One In.



In reality geotapeworms don't want anyone free of Land Tapeworms; they just don't want competition, and no exceptions to the tapeworm rule. There is only room in LVT Dodge for one kind of tapeworm. They want the tapeworm paradigm left intact, with the logical conclusion that we should just turn everyone into a host for the biggest tapeworm of all. Note that in Roy's Geocommunist rationale, the renter's situation does not change. The renters all still have landlords, and still must pay rents, only the landlord is now "the right kind".

Is there something wrong with that idea that I'm not getting? Isn't that better than taking the money people have earned by their own productive contributions?

That's just it, my fine slippery tapeworm advocate. All LVT is paid for by productivity of end users, who are not necessarily the landowners. There is no such thing as LVT that did not originate from, and was not ultimately siphoned from, productivity.

What the Henry George Theorem suggests to the doubly and triply evil statist vampires (the majority, who are not "single taxers" at all), is that with the addition of LVT state siphoning of private land rents, government spending can effectively DOUBLE, based on what the market already has proven it can bear.

...greedy, evil filth have to have SOME way to rob and enslave the productive.

Which, ironically, is precisely what LVT would accomplish. Greedy, evil, filthy way to rob and enslave the productive, thy name is Geoism.

 

[Roy L]

Roy, would you and Eco mind very much confining the stench of LVT to the threads already hijacked?

I will continue to champion liberty, justice and the truth in threads where they are relevant.