Robin Hood Tax ?

[Zippyjuan]

As for replacing taxes- what might those taxes be? Let us assume that we take the current US budget and balance it at current spending levels- which according to Wiki involves $3.796 trillion in spending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget by only having a Land Value Tax.

Now let us look at land available to tax. If we include every square inch of land- reguardless of use including mountains, deserts, parks (state, local, national) lakes, farms, cities, etc. we have a base of 2.3 billion acres. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib14.aspx

The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres. Major uses in 2002 were forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent); grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent); cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent); special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent); miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent); and urban land, 60 million acres (2.6 percent).

So if you wanted to pay all our bills by taxing every acre, each would owe $1650 an acre per year. (Who pays the taxes on unowned or government owned lands?)

How about if we went to the extreme and only taxed urban lands? Urban areas only cover 60 million acres. That would require an annual tax of $63,267 per acre per year. As I said, this would be an extreme figure. It is about 50% higher than the median income- before any taxes.

Next, lets add in agriculture areas (442 million acres) and grasslands and rangeland (587 million acres). Now our taxable base is up to 1.089 billion acres. Now it is $3,485 a year per acre. This assumes that a farm has the same land value as city land though. In general, city land is more costly than farmland or grassland. Those in cities would be paying more than that and the majority of people live in urban areas (about 80% of the US population http://www.theatlanticcities.com/ne...population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/# ). And once again as a reminder, currently about half the people currently pay zero in income taxes.

What is farmland worth? According to 2010 figures, the average farmland in the US was worth (in real estate terms) $2,140 an acre. http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2011/07/us-farmland-average-price-per-acre.html

Agricultural land values vary across States and regions depending on the inherent quality of the land for agricultural production, and on competing demands for other uses, such as development. As of January 2010, the Northeast farm production region had the highest average value of farm real estate, at $4,690 per acre, due in large part to the expected value of agricultural land for future nonagricultural uses. Rhode Island had the highest average value of any State, at $13,600 per acre. At the other extreme, farmland values in New Mexico, which contains large amounts of low-value rangeland, averaged $480 per acre. The average for the coterminous 48 States was $2,140.

If we used the LVT tax rate I calcuated above at a tax of $3,485 an acre, that amounts to a tax rate of 162% of the value of that land- and is due every year. Range land is usually worth less so its effective tax rate would be much higher (according to this source, http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2010s/2010/AgriLandVa-08-04-2010.txt it is worth $1,070 an acre also for 2010 so less than half of farmland and the effective tax there would be 326% or more than triple the value of the land itself). That tax would drive people away from farming and lower our food production greatly and also greatly increase the costs of all of our food we buy.

But if we exempt farmland and rangeland, then the average LVT is greater than the average before tax income of people. That will drive people out of the cities which would bid up the price of farmland and again decrease acerage devoted to food production and raise the costs of food again. Either way, an LVT will end up costing most people more money.

 

[Roy L]

My parents were recently taxed out of a house they "owned."

Oh? How? Did they not know they had to pay property taxes when they bought it? Could they have bought it for its purchase price if they didn't have to pay property taxes on it?

I guess it depends on how you define success.

It does indeed. For most people, it seems to be defined as success at getting something for nothing.

 

[Roy L]

So in this respect, LVT would not be an improvement over the current property tax system.

If you are going to have taxes, you have to have some way to collect them. If you are going to require people to pay for what they are taking, you have to not let them take it if they don't pay. Same as a bakery: if someone is walking out with a loaf of bread, they have to either pay or put the bread back. This isn't rocket science. You are just used to walking out of the bakery with the bread, but without paying. So now when we say, "You have to pay for what you are taking," you come off all shirty, and say you have a right to take the bread because you paid a previous bread thief for his racket. The problem is, he wasn't the baker. He was just another greedy taker, like you.

So I guess the state should steal it instead- for the good of the community of course (even though she is also a member of that community).

It is the landowner who is stealing, as I have already proved to you:

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

Is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?

If there were two, or three, or 300, or 3 million passes, each with its own resident bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?

If I have something of value, I should not be able to give it to my children if I so desire?

Not if it's a privilege of robbing others, or pocketing their taxes.

Wrong. If you replace one tax with another, mathematically you have exactly zero more dollars to save or spend.

Wrong. You have the taxes you previously paid, because now when you pay a landowner for land, the landowner has to pay your taxes for you.

You are still paying the same amount of your income in taxes.

Right. But you are no longer also paying to keep a rich, greedy, parasitic landowner in idle luxury.

And actually, most people would end up paying more since 46% of income tax filers last year owed no net income taxes and would now be responsible for LVT being added to property they either own or rent (land owners who rent the land out and are paying LVT will include the LVT in the rents they charge just as they currently do with other taxes like the property tax).

We've been through this. LVT can't be passed on to tenants, employees, consumers, or anyone else. It is borne exclusively by the landowner. This is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years, and is not disputed by any competent economist.

That leaves them with LESS money to save for future tax assessments.

No. For all but the top few percent of landowners, LVT would save them money. In most cases, it would save them a LOT of money. It would release the productive from the treadmill that powers the landowners' escalator, stopping them both, and turning them into staircases that each person would be able to climb according to their own efforts.

 

[Roy L]

As for replacing taxes- what might those taxes be? Let us assume that we take the current US budget and balance it at current spending levels- which according to Wiki involves $3.796 trillion in spending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget by only having a Land Value Tax.

That might not be possible. LVT can't raise more revenue than the full market rent of the land, and there is some disagreement about the effect it will have on land rents. Some economists say rents would rise as land use became more advantageous, others claim the flood of idle land onto the market would reduce land rents dramatically. Historical experience with partial implementations of LVT indicates that land rents might decline a bit at first, but would then grow rapidly along with the economy.

Now let us look at land available to tax. If we include every square inch of land- reguardless of use including mountains, deserts, parks (state, local, national) lakes, farms, cities, etc. we have a base of 2.3 billion acres. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib14.aspx

So if you wanted to pay all our bills by taxing every acre, each would owe $1650 an acre per year. (Who pays the taxes on unowned or government owned lands?)

How about if we went to the extreme and only taxed urban lands? Urban areas only cover 60 million acres. That would require an annual tax of $63,267 per acre per year. As I said, this would be an extreme figure. It is about 50% higher than the median income- before any taxes.

Next, lets add in agriculture areas (442 million acres) and grasslands and rangeland (587 million acres). Now our taxable base is up to 1.089 billion acres. Now it is $3,485 a year per acre. This assumes that a farm has the same land value as city land though. In general, city land is more costly than farmland or grassland. Those in cities would be paying more than that and the majority of people live in urban areas (about 80% of the US population http://www.theatlanticcities.com/ne...population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/# ). And once again as a reminder, currently about half the people currently pay zero in income taxes.

What is farmland worth? According to 2010 figures, the average farmland in the US was worth (in real estate terms) $2,140 an acre. http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2011/07/us-farmland-average-price-per-acre.html

If we used the LVT tax rate I calcuated above at a tax of $3,485 an acre, that amounts to a tax rate of 162% of the value of that land- and is due every year. Range land is usually worth less so its effective tax rate would be much higher (according to this source, http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2010s/2010/AgriLandVa-08-04-2010.txt it is worth $1,070 an acre also for 2010 so less than half of farmland and the effective tax there would be 326% or more than triple the value of the land itself). That tax would drive people away from farming and lower our food production greatly and also greatly increase the costs of all of our food we buy.

This is all la-la-land. LVT is no more than the market rent. Someone is willing to pay it by definition. All your calculations of acreage are meaningless because LVT recovers the market rent of each parcel of land, not an average rent for a whole category of land.

But if we exempt farmland and rangeland, then the average LVT is greater than the average before tax income of people.

Completely ridiculous. Most city dwellers use far less than an acre of land exclusively. Your numbers are just absurd fabrications.

That will drive people out of the cities which would bid up the price of farmland and again decrease acerage devoted to food production and raise the costs of food again. Either way, an LVT will end up costing most people more money.

No. LVT can drive good land into use, and poor land out of use, but not good land out of use.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Some economists say rents would rise as land use became more advantageous, others claim the flood of idle land onto the market would reduce land rents dramatically. Historical experience with partial implementations of LVT indicates that land rents might decline a bit at first, but would then grow rapidly along with the economy.

Denmark was the only western country ever to use LVT comprehensively at national level from the late 1950s to the early 1960s. They thought land values would fall. They rose as LVT promoted enterprise and created demand for land. This of course would level out and keep land value stable with no boom & busts which we have now. I posted a comprehensive post on Denmark based on Danish academic research. Search on it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

This is all la-la-land. LVT is no more than the market rent. Someone is willing to pay it by definition. All your calculations of acreage are meaningless because LVT recovers the market rent of each parcel of land, not an average rent for a whole category of land.

It is a valid look at what the average rent would be on the average property. Yes, each property would be different but that does not make an average irrelevant. It is useful to see how it would impact a typical person (and an average farm is considerably bigger than one acre which means the average farmer would be paying significantly more than that).

To keep things simple (urban land and density on average is difficult to calculate since it varies so much), lets stick with farm lands for now.

How big is the average farm and how much money do they make per acre? (How much of a tax could they absorb)?

According to this site http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm the average farm was 435 acres in 1998. If the LVT was $3485 an acre per year as calculated above, that would cost the average farmer $151,597 a year. A year. Every year. That would put a lot of farmers out of business. What could they possibly absorb in an LVT?

According the the US Department of Agriculture, the average farmer earns about $81,000 a year.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6929764_average-annual-income-farmer_.html

A farmer brought an annual income of $81,480 in 2004 according to a study run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These earnings stem from a combination of sources with 24 to 30 percent not coming from farm production.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that the average farmer's net income after all expenses have been subtracted from revenues is $35,000. Many farmers supplement their earnings with off-farm income. Typically, an additional $50,000 comes from renting land, leasing equipment or facilities, pension plans, social security or a part-time job.

Read more: What Is the Average Annual Income of a Farmer? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6929764_average-annual-income-farmer_.html#ixzz25zm05bQ4

That does not leave much margin for being able to absorb any additional taxes and being able to stay in business.

If he is making $35,000 a year after expenses and he owns 435 acres, that comes out to only $81 an acre (some costs will be fixed- things he has to pay reguardless of how many acres he has so the income from adding one or subtracting an additional acre will be lower than that) so even a tax of $100 an acre will excede his revenues and if costs exceed revenues, you are going to shut down.

Or even if we include his supplemental income sources and take the $81,000 figure, that comes out to $187 an acre so $200 an acre tax closes him down. Unless he can pass those costs along in the prices of what he sells which would mean higher food prices for everybody. If he closes, the supply of food goes down and the price goes up there as well.

How much revenue could you generate? Let's use the $200 an acre tax and apply that to all urban areas, farmlands, and grazing lands. As the figures above show, that would give you 1.089 billion acres to tax and would generate $217.8 billion dollars. That would just about cover one third of either Social Security or one third of defense spending. Nothing else.

If you added that tax on top of all of the other taxes we currently pay, the deficit for the year would still be about $800 billion. And most of your farmers would be gone.

 

[idiom]

Oh? How? Did they not know they had to pay property taxes when they bought it? Could they have bought it for its purchase price if they didn't have to pay property taxes on it?

Same way it happened to the indigenous Taiwanese. Invaders showed up, implemented LVT and then seized land when the tax couldn't be met.

 

[Roy L]

Same way it happened to the indigenous Taiwanese. Invaders showed up, implemented LVT and then seized land when the tax couldn't be met.

That didn't happen to the indigenous Taiwanese, and it didn't happen to his parents, either.

I've noticed that you are remarkably consistent in always makin' $#!+ up.

 

[awake]

Do we have to put up with a 1000 post thread by Eco-RoyL pushing how land value taxation is liberty from the government? It has been torn apart by some of the brighter forum members here to reveal the emperors glaring backside.

Give it up. Taxation by any name is theft and slavery.

 

[Roy L]

It is a valid look at what the average rent would be on the average property.

No, it's not.

Yes, each property would be different but that does not make an average irrelevant.

It makes an average that you aren't even talking about irrelevant. You're shrieking about farmers not being able to afford an "average" LVT based on urban land values, then shriek about urban dwellers not being able to afford "average" LVT based on rural levels of area usage. It's fallacious, absurd and dishonest from start to finish.

It is useful to see how it would impact a typical person (and an average farm is considerably bigger than one acre which means the average farmer would be paying significantly more than that).

It's absurd because it completely ignores the fact that LVT is always affordable by definition: it can't exceed the land rent someone is WILLING TO PAY to use the land.

To keep things simple (urban land and density on average is difficult to calculate since it varies so much), lets stick with farm lands for now.

<sigh> Here we go again...

How big is the average farm and how much money do they make per acre? (How much of a tax could they absorb)?

Wrong question. The ONLY number that matters is the market rent of the land. The LVT can't exceed that amount.

According to this site http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm the average farm was 435 acres in 1998. If the LVT was $3485 an acre per year as calculated above,

Which calculation I already proved was absurd...

that would cost the average farmer $151,597 a year. A year. Every year. That would put a lot of farmers out of business. What could they possibly absorb in an LVT?

The market rent of the land, WHICH PLENTY OF FARMERS ARE ALREADY PAYING, WITH NONE OF THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES YOU PREDICT.

According the the US Department of Agriculture, the average farmer earns about $81,000 a year.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6929764_average-annual-income-farmer_.html

Another irrelevant number. The ONLY number that counts is the land rent.

That does not leave much margin for being able to absorb any additional taxes and being able to stay in business.

LVT is not an additional tax. It replaces unfair taxes that harm the economy.

If he is making $35,000 a year after expenses and he owns 435 acres, that comes out to only $81 an acre (some costs will be fixed- things he has to pay reguardless of how many acres he has so the income from adding one or subtracting an additional acre will be lower than that) so even a tax of $100 an acre will excede his revenues and if costs exceed revenues, you are going to shut down.

Worthless garbage. You are conflating farmers (who earn those low incomes) and landowners (who would pay the LVT).

Or even if we include his supplemental income sources and take the $81,000 figure, that comes out to $187 an acre so $200 an acre tax closes him down. Unless he can pass those costs along in the prices of what he sells which would mean higher food prices for everybody. If he closes, the supply of food goes down and the price goes up there as well.

Someone is willing to pay the LVT to use the land by definition.

How much revenue could you generate? Let's use the $200 an acre tax and apply that to all urban areas,

See how dishonest you always have to be? It's never any different. Fabricating fallacious and absurd objections to LVT (and there have never been any other kind, and never will be) ALWAYS requires dishonesty. ALWAYS.

farmlands, and grazing lands. As the figures above show,

The figures above are absurd fabrications by you, and show nothing of the sort.

that would give you 1.089 billion acres to tax and would generate $217.8 billion dollars. That would just about cover one third of either Social Security or one third of defense spending. Nothing else.

Because you took a number for rural land that had nothing to do with LVT, and applied it dishonestly to urban land.

It's not rocket science, Zip. The economy is largely urban, so urban land accounts for most land rent. How much? Well, most real estate value is land value, so think of what a typical city or suburban dweller pays in rent, take half of that, and multiply by the number of city and suburban dwellers in the country. That will be roughly half the total land rent. Ballpark: $1000/month rent for a typical two-person household. So $250/month ($3K/yr) residential land rent per person. Multiply that by 250M urban dwellers and you get $750G. Double that to account for non-urban and non-residential urban land rent, and you get to total potential LVT revenue of $1.5T. That's just for locations. Add mining royalties, oil royalties, spectrum rents, etc. and you get to around $2T. And some economists think it will rise a lot as other taxes are removed.

If you added that tax on top of all of the other taxes we currently pay, the deficit for the year would still be about $800 billion. And most of your farmers would be gone.

Nope. Pure fabrication. Everything you have said on this subject has been fallacious, absurd and dishonest.

 

[awake]

Eco-RoyL stop trying to sell a better moustrap to the mice.

 

[Roy L]

Do we have to put up with a 1000 post thread by Eco-RoyL pushing how land value taxation is liberty from the government?

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.

It has been torn apart by some of the brighter forum members here to reveal the emperors glaring backside.

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

Give it up. Taxation by any name is theft and slavery.

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

 

[Roy L]

Eco-RoyL stop trying to sell a better moustrap to the mice.

We're showing you the treadmill you're on, how it powers the landowners' escalator, and how to stop them both.

 

[awake]

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.

Government just needs the right people eh? Government is, and can never be but stupid, unfair, corrupt, and economically destructive.

I reject your attacks on the foundation of civilization in property rights. Nationalization of all land through taking of the total price of land purchase is simply land communism. And once again you are not making any converts here. You don't understand liberty at all...It shows in your 'we need government ' line.

 

[Origanalist]

Government just needs the right people eh?

I reject your attacks on the foundation of civilization in property rights. Nationalization of all land through taking of the total price of land purchase is simply land communism. And once again you are not making any converts here. You don't understand liberty at all...It shows in your 'we need government ' line.

It's like trying to talk to a recording, does not register.

 

[awake]

We're showing you the treadmill you're on, how it powers the landowners' escalator, and how to stop them both.

BS...You are simply antagonizing with your messianic LVT nonsense.

 

[awake]

Actually I believe there is a thread currently floating looking for some remedies for a bout of gout. I think LVT might just be the miracle cure for that form member seeking assistance. On second thought, no need to have gout and a migraine too.

 

[Steven Douglas]

"What? Another thread hijacked and flown into the LVT rabbit hole?" I said to nobody in particular, while feigning surprise.

Back to the OP's topic. ::: slapping thread terrorists senseless and tossing them out of the cockpit :::

Contrary to popular belief, in the legend of Robin Hood, he did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole from the tax collectors to give back to the people.

Huge difference. So a "Robin Hood Tax" doesn't even make sense.

Exactly, Robin Hood was stealing back what was already stolen. Ergo, neither theft nor tax, but justice.

Yep, Robin was loyal to King Richard the Lionhearted (analogous to the "Constitution"), and hating of Prince John (analogous to what we have now) and his arrogant, greedy police state sheering of the sheep through the Sheriff of Nottingham under color of law.

Even Disney knew and used the famous quote from Friar Tuck, one of history's original libertarians:

 

[Steven Douglas]

I'm not at all a fan of Monetarist Milton Friedman, but he did make some extremely good points about the Robin Hood myth in politics.

 

[idiom]

That didn't happen to the indigenous Taiwanese, and it didn't happen to his parents, either.

I've noticed that you are remarkably consistent in always makin' $#!+ up.

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