Robin Hood Tax ?

[kylejack]

The Federal Reserve doesn't own any gold. They do store some for the government but they don't own it- officially it belongs to the Treasury.

Since they won't permit an audit, there's no way to know if they do or don't own gold.

 

[MattintheCrown]

I think you're being obtuse. Add "are concerned" to the end (as I'm sure most did already, given that it was more than obvious) -

It wasn't obvious at all. Here's a hint, Steven: unlike you, we readers do not have access to your mind.

and to further clarify, add "to the state" after the words "for profit", such that it reads, and will parse as:

Government services and infrastructure are NOT for profit to the state where private individuals with unalienable rights are concerned.

Clear enough? Could you parse that?

Not really. It'd be better if you just rephrased it, because I still don't know what you're talking about. Profit has nothing to do with anything; I merely stated that a portion of land rent arises from government supplied services and infrastructure. I can see why you'd try to muddy the waters with nonsense about profit, but it's a really simple point.

What an absolute load of nebulous, collectivized and narrowed assumptions, with flagrantly presumptive compound question begging. To wit:

Only "fellow citizens" are considered. The word "anyone" could have applied to any commercially acting entity, real or fictitious, foreign or domestic, public or private. However, you specifically wrote "his fellow citizens", which deliberately constrains your meaning of "anyone" to any individual fellow citizen only - singular (foreigners, the state, corporations which are fictitious entities created by the state, etc., are not "fellow citizens").

I was going to use the word "society," but I felt that someone might once again challenge the existence of society, so I felt it was better to use "fellow citizens," as that would prevent anyone from avoiding the point. Sadly, I was wrong, and you've still managed to avoid the point, by way of this useless diversion.

We can table your deliberately constrained bullshit question for the moment, as we make other, equally narrowed (but also equally inclusive) distinctions that begin to flesh out the realities of a much larger geoist picture. For example, you could just as easily have asked, as a narrowly focused compound question:

"Why should a foreigner get to charge Citizens of another country for access to benefits provided by those Citizens via the very government that was created by them to serve on their behalf, and to protect their interests?"

The above sentence applies equally to your geoist paradigm. But it would also be a very differently loaded question, which I would answer very differently, given the status of each of three entities involved. Note the deliberate omission of "access to [privately owned] benefits provided by [private] Citizens", which can be considered separately, as a matter of principle.

Not really. You've created another sentence that doesn't parse. I challenge the forum to determine what you were trying to say. I've read that 3 times now, and have only the foggiest of notions what you're trying to say.

Thing is, you're perfectly capable of creating a sentence; it's just that the nonsense you've descended to has you flailing to produce sentences that convey the nonsensical message. They probably don't parse because there's no sense to be had of it outside your mind.

The answer to the question as I phrased it above is a resounding, "Good question, with a very easy answer.":

"Foreigners should NEVER have the power to charge Citizens, individually or collectively, for access to benefits provided by those very Citizens through their government."

And did you see how I removed government as a "provider"? We can toss out that question-begging bullshit as well. Our government provides nothing except as a servant, agent, and extension of all its individual Citizens, on whose behalf of it exists and acts. If a government can be viewed as truly separate from its Citizens, or seen in any other light, there is no legitimacy for that government that I would accept.

Sigh. Again, no idea. Why don't you just answer my question?

Oh, right.

Your compound question was ridiculously loaded in other ways, as it was as nebulous and ill-defined in some areas as it was deliberately constrained in meaning in others (e.g., the words "charge", and "access to" and "benefits").

It was very simple. There was nothing indirect or sneaky about it. A 5 year old would have understood it very well.

We can continue to dissect and drill down into what those mean, and how and to whom they would apply, but let's see how well we do with what I have written thus far. Before we get a rational rephrasing of your compound question so that it really can be answered, answer mine:

"Why should a foreigner get to charge Citizens of another country for access to benefits provided by those Citizens in their country via the very government that was created by them to serve on their behalf, and to protect their interests?

If you think my version contains question begging that you don't accept, just say so as well, and we can debate that as well.

To the extent I even know what the hell you're talking about, I'd say they shouldn't. But obviously I'm misunderstanding you, because from what I can tell, you're asking the same question I asked, only applying it to a foreign country, which obviously doesn't make any sense for you to do. If I had shown you this post of yours two years ago, I'd be you'd have been astounded, and claimed you would never craft something so ridiculous. But that's what opposing truth does to people, and here you are.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Since they won't permit an audit, there's no way to know if they do or don't own gold.

Their books are audited every year.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report/2011-federal-reserve-system-audits.htm

The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review.

The Board's financial statements, and its compliance with laws and regulations affecting those statements, are audited annually by an outside auditor retained by the Board's Office of Inspector General.

The Reserve Banks' financial statements are audited annually by an independent outside auditor retained by the Board of Governors. In addition, the Reserve Banks are subject to annual examination by the Board. As discussed in the chapter "Federal Reserve Banks," the Board's examination includes a wide range of ongoing oversight activities conducted on site and off site by staff of the Board's Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems.

The OIG also conducts audits, reviews, and investigations relating to the Board's programs and operations as well as to Board functions delegated to the Reserve Banks, and Federal Reserve operations are also subject to review by the Government Accountability Office.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Profit has nothing to do with anything; I merely stated that a portion of land rent arises from government supplied services and infrastructure.

You really are being obtuse. LVT is levied, due and payable, without regard any expenditures by the state, and regardless of what services and infrastructures are provided, past, present or future. That means that the state is behaving no differently than any for-profit, profit-maximizing, rent-collecting corporation. It does not provide services and infrastructure "at cost", because it continues to charge future rents on infrastructure long after its initial costs are recovered, and without regard to the actual common needs of the people it ostensibly serves. Thus, the state is a growth industry in itself, taking in actual profits which inure the benefits of whomever is the beneficiary of redistributed revenues.

I was going to use the word "society," but I felt that someone might once again challenge the existence of society, so I felt it was better to use "fellow citizens," as that would prevent anyone from avoiding the point. Sadly, I was wrong, and you've still managed to avoid the point, by way of this useless diversion.

Just as you failed, as you name only "society" or "fellow citizens", without acknowledging that you have included foreigners, corporations, etc., on equal footing in that mix.

Why don't you just answer my question?

Oh, right.

It was very simple. There was nothing indirect or sneaky about it. A 5 year old would have understood it very well.

Why should anyone get to charge his fellow citizens for access to benefits provided by the government and other citizens?

A 5 year-old wouldn't have the slightest idea of what you were talking about. And your sentence cannot be answered without being taken out of its fuzzy question begging compound form, with ill-defined terms clarified and defined, such that EACH resulting question could be answered independently.

By "anyone", you obviously meant a "fellow citizen", but why did you constrain that when more than just citizens are involved, who are not?
Why did you conflate what government provides with what citizens provide?
How, exactly does a citizen "charge for access to benefits provided by other citizens"? WHAT benefits, and HOW are those "charged for", exactly? Can you answer that without arguing from a circular geoist premise that nobody here except geoist accepts?

If I put a rope or a fence around your business and "charge" others a fee for access to the benefits YOU PERSONALLY are offering, let me know so I can stop that, as that would wrong.

What do you mean by "charge"? What is/are that/those charge mechanism(s), exactly?
What do you mean by "access to"?
What do you mean by "benefits"? What benefits, specifically?
What do you mean by "provided"?

Your compound question might produce a nice, generally indignant feel-good response in the guts of geoists, but you're going to need to be more specific if you want it to have any meaning for anyone else not already part of your choir.

 

[MattintheCrown]

You really are being obtuse.

No, I'm not. What you wrote simply had nothing to do with what I said. Again, I simply pointed out that some portion of land value is attributable to the services and infrastructure provided by the government. Full stop.

LVT is levied, due and payable, without regard any expenditures by the state, and regardless of what services and infrastructures are provided, past, present or future. That means that the state is behaving no differently than any for-profit, profit-maximizing, rent-collecting corporation. It does not provide services and infrastructure "at cost", because it continues to charge future rents on infrastructure long after its initial costs are recovered, and without regard to the actual common needs of the people it ostensibly serves.

No, it charges current rents.

Thus, the state is a growth industry in itself, taking in actual profits which inure the benefits of whomever is the beneficiary of redistributed revenues.

Not really, because the state is a democratic institution which has no shares, and provides no dividends.

Just as you failed, as you name only "society" or "fellow citizens", without acknowledging that you have included foreigners, corporations, etc., on equal footing in that mix.

That simply makes no difference to my point.

A 5 year-old wouldn't have the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

Yes, he or she would.

And your sentence cannot be answered without being taken out of its fuzzy question begging compound form, with ill-defined terms clarified and defined, such that EACH resulting question could be answered independently.

Yes, it could. There was no question-begging.

By "anyone", you obviously meant a "fellow citizen", but why did you constrain that when more than just citizens are involved, who are not?

I didn't constrain anything. You're just appealing to semantics.

Why did you conflate what government provides with what citizens provide?

I didn't, of course.

How, exactly does a citizen "charge for access to benefits provided by other citizens"?

By owning land and leasing it to others, or selling it.

WHAT benefits, and HOW are those "charged for", exactly? Can you answer that without arguing from a circular geoist premise that nobody here except geoist accepts?

The benefits fall into the three categories I've already named. Their degree and extent are measured by the market as land value.

If I put a rope or a fence around your business and "charge" others a fee for access to the benefits YOU PERSONALLY are offering, let me know so I can stop that, as that would wrong.

That's effectively what landowners do to land, only instead of me offering the benefits, it's society, nature, and government.

Of course, the landowners don't put the "fence" up: government does. Government currently privileges landowners with exclusive use of part of the land that comprises the state, and allows the landowners to charge others for the benefits provided by nature, society, and the state.

What do you mean by "charge"? What is/are that/those charge mechanism(s), exactly?

Selling or leasing.

What do you mean by "access to"?

Use of, via proximity.

What do you mean by "benefits"? What benefits, specifically?

The benefits are manifold. The benefit of being located where there is a large supply of laborers and consumers, the benefit of being located near to public transportation, etc.

What do you mean by "provided"?

www.dictionary.com

Your compound question might produce a nice, generally indignant feel-good response in the guts of geoists, but you're going to need to be more specific if you want it to have any meaning for anyone else not already part of your choir.

Nonsense. The simple fact is that you know you have no reasonable answer to the question, so you're trying to find ways to avoid answering it.

You know you're wrong, Steven. Why keep it up? I was like you once, of course. I tried every way I could to prove geoists wrong; I'll even admit resorting to dishonest arguments and making absurd arguments. But I didn't keep it up long; eventually, I set out to read Progress and Poverty and find the exact point where George went off track. Thing is, he didn't. He's right. Being proved wrong is unpleasant, sure, but being right is ultimately more important. Your ideology doesn't define you.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

You LVT guys are comical, in a drunken sort of way.

 

[MattintheCrown]

You LVT guys are comical, in a drunken sort of way.

Well, that's a helpful comment. As a fellow Hoosier, perhaps you can set me straight.

 

[Steven Douglas]

...some portion of land value is attributable to the services and infrastructure provided by the government. Full stop.

So is some portion of candy bar value, hooker value, crime value... all full stop. Why, you could go on all day and create War & Peace sized tome that listed nothing but goods and services, the value of which can attributed in part to common infrastructure-provided-by-the-people-through-their-lowly-servants-the-government.

So I guess in that blitheringly meaningless sense every citizen gets to charge for what the people, through their government, provided in common, through government services and infracture. Innat neat? Innat swell?

No, it charges current rents.

Try again.

"Current rents" under LVT only means tax equal to the annual rental value of a given parcel land if that parcel was unimproved. Part of that annual rental value of unimproved land is attributable to things which have zero cost (namely, the unimproved land itself), as well as infrastructure, the costs of much of which has long since been been captured.

Not really, because the state is a democratic institution which has no shares, and provides no dividends.

Oops! There goes Roy's Universal Individual Exemption down the geotoilet, as well as many geoists thoughts regarding wealth redistribution in the form of dividends.

That simply makes no difference to my point.

Yes, he or she would.

Yes, it could. There was no question-begging.

I didn't constrain anything. You're just appealing to semantics.

I didn't, of course.

Unresponsive X 6.

How, exactly does a citizen "charge for access to benefits provided by other citizens"?

By owning land and leasing it to others, or selling it.

Cool, so anyone who owns land, but does not lease or sell it to others, has not charged for access to benefits provided by other citizens?

Either way, you still didn't connect the dots for landowners who do lease or sell their land to others. How, exactly, is leasing or selling owned land tantamount to charging for "access to benefits provided by other citizens"? What benefits? Which citizens?

That's effectively what landowners do to land, only instead of me offering the benefits, it's society, nature, and government.

Nature is initially free, but not when privately owned. Government is a servant that provides only necessary common benefits at cost only (no perpetual rents charged over its own costs). And "society", economically speaking, does not exist. That is a fictional abstraction. And if you were really saying "private sector market" -- that's none of your business, unless you are talking about entities without rights. Not all entities in the market have the same legal status, nor does the state (or any extension thereof) have any rightful entitlement to rents arising from the private sector.

Of course, the landowners don't put the "fence" up: government does.

Exactly.

Government currently privileges landowners with exclusive use of part of the land that comprises the state

...only in a geocommunist, geofascist framework, wherein ALL LAND, including privately owned land, is considered commonwealth. Fuck that.

...and allows the landowners to charge others for the benefits provided by nature, society, and the state.

See above re: nature, society, and the state.

The benefits are manifold. The benefit of being located where there is a large supply of laborers and consumers, the benefit of being located near to public transportation, etc.

Lucky landowners, good on them. But luckier consumers under LVT, including foreigners. They also have access to those benefits. Anyone who comes in does. They are taking advantage of (and even wearing out) services, amenities, and infrastructure like anyone else. Why do they get a free ride? Where's the fucking land rents cover charge for other market participants who are using all these things? Is it free to them because they only use it up and wear it out, but not exclusively? Why no toll booths at all roads, and especially those leading to the juicier busier markets, charging a BENEFITS ACCESS USE TAX to all those freeloading bastards who come in to suckle off of all that access to benefits that you're so keen to charge only to end user landowners? They aren't the only ones with access to benefits - but somehow they are the only ones expected to pay for them.

Could it be that you have embarrassed yourself before others by erroneously buying into a simplistic simpleton's model of land and landowners as being "the source and location of all economic supply and its value", while non-landowners are presumed to be the source of something entirely different and special where "access to benefits" is concerned?

You know you're wrong, Matt. Why keep it up? You were never like me, of course. You claim to have tried every way you could to prove geoists wrong, and got sucked in, when a little critical thought could have served you better. And since you admitted to resorting to dishonest arguments and making absurd arguments already, there is no reason to believe that has changed. I also read Progress and Poverty, and listened to geolibs embarrassingly ad nauseam rants and preachings. It was not so much find out the exact point where George and all the rest went off track, but rather the source of their credulity, and how it was they all appeared to have lost their collective minds. And thing is, I did find it. Being proved wrong is unpleasant for you, sure, but being right is ultimately more important. Your ideology may define you now, but it doesn't have to.

 

[MattintheCrown]

So is some portion of candy bar value, hooker value, crime value... all full stop. Why, you could go on all day and create War & Peace sized tome that listed nothing but goods and services, the value of which can attributed in part to common infrastructure-provided-by-the-people-through-their-lowly-servants-the-government.

Because land is provided by nature, and secured by government.

Try again.

"Current rents" under LVT only means tax equal to the annual rental value of a given parcel land if that parcel was unimproved. Part of that annual rental value of unimproved land is attributable to things which have zero cost (namely, the unimproved land itself), as well as infrastructure, the costs of much of which has long since been been captured.

Nope. Such infrastructure must be maintained.

Oops! There goes Roy's Universal Individual Exemption down the geotoilet, as well as many geoists thoughts regarding wealth redistribution in the form of dividends.

Nope. Citizens don't get a share of revenue, they get an exemption.

Unresponsive X 6.

Nonsense.

Cool, so anyone who owns land, but does not lease or sell it to others, has not charged for access to benefits provided by other citizens?

They have the ability to do so, which ability you defined as a "right."

Either way, you still didn't connect the dots for landowners who do lease or sell their land to others. How, exactly, is leasing or selling owned land tantamount to charging for "access to benefits provided by other citizens"? What benefits? Which citizens?

I've already explained, as you well know.

Nature is initially free, but not when privately owned.

Question begging. In what sense is the land privately owned?

Government is a servant that provides only necessary common benefits at cost only (no perpetual rents charged over its own costs). And "society", economically speaking, does not exist.

Society exists, period. Economically or otherwise.

That is a fictional abstraction. And if you were really saying "private sector market" -- that's none of your business, unless you are talking about entities without rights. Not all entities in the market have the same legal status, nor does the state (or any extension thereof) have any rightful entitlement to rents arising from the private sector.

Land rents are the product of the three factors I've named.

...only in a geocommunist, geofascist framework, wherein ALL LAND, including privately owned land, is considered commonwealth. Fuck that.

You cannot, of course, provide valid justification for private ownership of land.

See above re: nature, society, and the state.

Owned.

Lucky landowners, good on them.

This proves you a liar. Previously, you complained about newcomers in society, claiming how the LVT would disadvantage them relative to established landowners under the LVT. Yet, here you are, claiming that there's no problem whatsoever with existing landowners reaping benefits provided by others.

You have no principles. All you're concerned with is opposing the LVT.

But luckier consumers under LVT, including foreigners.

Luckier pretty much anyone: producers, consumers, etc.

They also have access to those benefits. Anyone who comes in does.

Nope, they have to pay landowners for them.

They are taking advantage of (and even wearing out) services, amenities, and infrastructure like anyone else. Why do they get a free ride? Where's the fucking land rents cover charge for other market participants who are using all these things? Is it free to them because they only use it up and wear it out, but not exclusively? Why no toll booths at all roads, and especially those leading to the juicier busier markets, charging a BENEFITS ACCESS USE TAX to all those freeloading bastards who come in to suckle off of all that access to benefits that you're so keen to charge only to end user landowners? They aren't the only ones with access to benefits - but somehow they are the only ones expected to pay for them.

Be honest: do you oppose the LVT because it doesn't go far enough? If "no," you don't have a point.

Could it be that you have embarrassed yourself before others by erroneously buying into a simplistic simpleton's model of land and landowners as being "the source and location of all economic supply and its value", while non-landowners are presumed to be the source of something entirely different and special where "access to benefits" is concerned?

Doesn't parse.

You know you're wrong, Matt. Why keep it up? You were never like me, of course.

I'm smarter, that's true.

You claim to have tried every way you could to prove geoists wrong, and got sucked in, when a little critical thought could have served you better. And since you admitted to resorting to dishonest arguments and making absurd arguments already, there is no reason to believe that has changed. I also read Progress and Poverty, and listened to geolibs embarrassingly ad nauseam rants and preachings. It was not so much find out the exact point where George and all the rest went off track, but rather the source of their credulity, and how it was they all appeared to have lost their collective minds. And thing is, I did find it. Being proved wrong is unpleasant for you, sure, but being right is ultimately more important. Your ideology may define you now, but it doesn't have to.

It's just a plain lie that you've read Progress and Poverty. You can tell it, of course. No one can stop you. Just ask yourself why you should be compelled to tell such a lie. Other than that, I can't help you. If you're shameless, you're shameless.

 

[kylejack]

Their books are audited every year.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report/2011-federal-reserve-system-audits.htm

The Fed isn't required to disclose all its financials, so auditing the financial statements that it is required to disclose doesn't tell you much about what it isn't required to disclose.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Because land is provided by nature, and secured by government.

Yes, for private ownership, and rights of property in land. Howzat for question begging? See the difference between your government and mine?

Nope. Citizens don't get a share of revenue, they get an exemption.

Exemptions are a separate issue, and are not required for a Land Value Tax to be implemented. That's a fictitious plum you're dangling - the spoonful of rent-free sugar promise to help everyone to swallow the LVT medicine, basically on the idea that "little people" won't actually be swallowing it (yeah right).

Without some kind of separate exemption promise, LVT stands even a lesser chance in hell than it already has, and that should be a hint and a half to geosocialists. Aside from those suckling from the teats of state, no other individual in their right mind wants to be enslaved in a land where a state controls all land allocations, and where land rents are charged by a landlord state as the rule. So a "value" (not area) exemption is advanced by some geoists.

PACKAGED DEAL FALLACY

LVT is always put forth in a way intended to suggest that exemptions are a packaged deal, and somehow an integral part of LVT. In fact, some geoists would like the very term LVT to be thought of as synonymous with geoism. It is not. LVT is nothing more than a basis for a tax, regardless of rationale, and can be applied without a hint of geoism involved.

Likewise, in the Packaged Deal Bundle Fallacy mindset, proponents of LVT also want the tax itself thought of as a single tax, even though that is only their objective - their goal - which has nothing to do with the nature of the actual tax. LVT can exist just fine alongside any other tax, and could (and likely would) end up being just one more tax leg in the state's "x-legged tax stool".

STATE: How do I love thee and thy taxes? Let me count the ways.

Cool, so anyone who owns land, but does not lease or sell it to others, has not charged for access to benefits provided by other citizens?

They have the ability to do so, which ability you defined as a "right."

So what? If they are not exercising that ability, nobody is harmed, right? No LVT applies, since the landowner/occupier, who neither leases nor sells, is not "charging for access to benefits provided by other citizens". It is more than easy to know if someone is doing that. There is no valid reason to assume that because a capacity is there, that everyone is exercising it.

In what sense is the land privately owned?

In the sense that My Good Government uses the same aggression and force as Your Evil People-Enslaving Landlord Government would. The ONLY difference is who is presumed to be entitled to capture land rents on privately owned lands. With My Good Government there would be recognition, enforcement and protection of unalienable rights of private tax free landownership up front. Your Evil Government would only recognize private land as taxable Common Property, which can be owned only on condition of payment of a tax on land rents to the state. With My Good Government private land would be treated as property in a free market that does not enslave everyone to perpetual rents to the state, under color of "liberating" people from all the so-called evils of private individual landownership.

Society exists, period. Economically or otherwise.

Yeah, so does water vapor.

Land rents are the product of the three factors I've named.

Not one of which is a valid justification for perpetual land rent capture by a geofascist state.

You cannot, of course, provide valid justification for private ownership of land.

Of course I can: Giving all private Citizens (who are only one part of the land market) the opportunity to attain individual economic sovereignty that comes from being completely free of paying rents to anyone, public or private. In other words, The People Themselves Are Free, and enjoy automatic economic advantages over all other entities, regardless which wealth or factors of production are considered. All others can tremble before the state that protects only the private interests and opportunities of its individual Citizens. Everyone else's interests are protected only to the extent that they do not interfere in any way with private interests of individual Citizens, and only as they contribute to the common good.

See that? Unlike you, Matt, I can and do distinguish between the rights of the private human individual Citizen and the privileged existence and behavior of all the other players in the market which should never be on par, as having equal rights and opportunities. It's that simple, and that is the crucial distinction that explains the fatal flaws in all oppressive politico-economic models and paradigms. Including yours.

Owned.

Previously, you complained about newcomers in society, claiming how the LVT would disadvantage them relative to established landowners under the LVT.

The disadvantage of your LVT implementation (on everyone, regardless of legal status), would ultimately be magnified many times over what we have even now, as LVT actually punishes low development and rewards only the biggest developers. The biggest difference, and the most pernicious part, is that right now there is at least a pathway to freedom from paying any rents to anyone, public or private, through private landownership. Under LVT there would be absolutely NO pathway to such freedom. All end users of land would be enslaved. And spare me your separate, wholly fictitious, worthless exemption, which is little more than an empty promise for "discount" on the rule that everyone is considered a land renter from the landlord state).

Yet, here you are, claiming that there's no problem whatsoever with existing landowners reaping benefits provided by others.

The way you defined "benefits provided by others"? Hell yes. I have absolutely no problem with existing [private, individual, Citizen] landowners reaping ANY benefits from the land they own, free of all taxes, including LVT. THAT IS WHO THE FUCKING BENEFITS ARE FOR!

You have no principles, Matt. Especially not where individual liberties are concerned. All you're concerned with is advancing LVT.

Be honest: do you oppose the LVT because it doesn't go far enough? If "no," you don't have a point.

I am opposed to LVT (YOUR VERSION) because it goes way too far, in that it includes individual landowner Citizens, especially residents of privately owned land, who exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right. They are the only entities on Earth who are entitled to PAY NO TAXES. NOT ONE. NOT EVER. Every other commercial entity, real or fictitious, exists and behaves as a matter of conditional privilege, not unalienable right. Those entities can be taxed out of existence, should the profit-maximizing state be stupid enough to do that. Not real human individuals, who are the ONLY entities worth giving a fuck about, and should be IMMUNE. PERPETUALLY.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Well, that's a helpful comment. As a fellow Hoosier, perhaps you can set me straight.

Nah, I've been there with other subjects that had similar evangelists. You guys aren't interested in "being set straight". You talk in circles in hopes of wearing your victim down.

I do enjoy reading these threads from time to time, and Steven does a good job revealing the circle jerkiness of LVT

 

[MattintheCrown]

Nah, I've been there with other subjects that had similar evangelists. You guys aren't interested in "being set straight". You talk in circles in hopes of wearing your victim down.

I do enjoy reading these threads from time to time, and Steven does a good job revealing the circle jerkiness of LVT

Steven's been comprehensively demolished at every turn. You know you would to, so you avoid it. Simple.

 

[James Madison]

Soooooo....under this LVT does the government owe taxes to...itself? Since it's using land for private gain.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Yes, for private ownership, and rights of property in land. Howzat for question begging? See the difference between your government and mine?

Once again, I don't know what you're trying to say.

Exemptions are a separate issue, and are not required for a Land Value Tax to be implemented. That's a fictitious plum you're dangling - the spoonful of rent-free sugar promise to help everyone to swallow the LVT medicine, basically on the idea that "little people" won't actually be swallowing it (yeah right).

No, it's just a common-sense rule, and one similar to the individual income-tax deduction.

Without some kind of separate exemption promise, LVT stands even a lesser chance in hell than it already has, and that should be a hint and a half to geosocialists. Aside from those suckling from the teats of state, no other individual in their right mind wants to be enslaved in a land where a state controls all land allocations, and where land rents are charged by a landlord state as the rule. So a "value" (not area) exemption is advanced by some geoists.

Of course, no one has proposed the state "control" land allocations, and that's just something you made up, because you have no arguments.

PACKAGED DEAL FALLACY

LVT is always put forth in a way intended to suggest that exemptions are a packaged deal, and somehow an integral part of LVT. In fact, some geoists would like the very term LVT to be thought of as synonymous with geoism. It is not. LVT is nothing more than a basis for a tax, regardless of rationale, and can be applied without a hint of geoism involved.

How is that supposed to be a fallacy?

Likewise, in the Packaged Deal Bundle Fallacy mindset, proponents of LVT also want the tax itself thought of as a single tax, even though that is only their objective - their goal - which has nothing to do with the nature of the actual tax. LVT can exist just fine alongside any other tax, and could (and likely would) end up being just one more tax leg in the state's "x-legged tax stool".

Again, that's not a fallacy. We're proposing reducing other taxes in favor of a LVT. It could happen that a LVT was levied without other taxes being reduced, but that's simply not what we're proposing.

STATE: How do I love thee and thy taxes? Let me count the ways.

Just stupid "me hates gubmint" nonsense.

So what? If they are not exercising that ability, nobody is harmed, right?

Wrong. Everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land is harmed.

No LVT applies, since the landowner/occupier, who neither leases nor sells, is not "charging for access to benefits provided by other citizens". It is more than easy to know if someone is doing that. There is no valid reason to assume that because a capacity is there, that everyone is exercising it.

They effectively are, because the land increase in value nevertheless.

In the sense that My Good Government uses the same aggression and force as Your Evil People-Enslaving Landlord Government would. The ONLY difference is who is presumed to be entitled to capture land rents on privately owned lands. With My Good Government there would be recognition, enforcement and protection of unalienable rights of private tax free landownership up front.

On what basis? How would people come to own land?

Your Evil Government would only recognize private land as taxable Common Property, which can be owned only on condition of payment of a tax on land rents to the state. With My Good Government private land would be treated as property in a free market that does not enslave everyone to perpetual rents to the state, under color of "liberating" people from all the so-called evils of private individual landownership.

Nope. My government would recognize equal rights for all, and would therefore demand those privileged with exclusive use of some part of the land that makes up the nation to compensate those who are thereby deprived its use. Yours would simply gift away the commonwealth, dividing citizens into a privileged class, and underclass.

Not one of which is a valid justification for perpetual land rent capture by a geofascist state.

All of which are a valid justification for the state to levy a tax on the benefits provided by people other than the owners of land.

Of course I can: Giving all private Citizens (who are only one part of the land market) the opportunity to attain individual economic sovereignty that comes from being completely free of paying rents to anyone, public or private.

How? How does that come about? And, what of the rights of those who have no land? Where are they to live?

In other words, The People Themselves Are Free, and enjoy automatic economic advantages over all other entities, regardless which wealth or factors of production are considered. All others can tremble before the state that protects only the private interests and opportunities of its individual Citizens. Everyone else's interests are protected only to the extent that they do not interfere in any way with private interests of individual Citizens, and only as they contribute to the common good.

But the people aren't free, Steven: they have nowhere where they have the right to exist. They must purchase the right to exist from others. They're enslaved, and forced to buy their freedom.

See that? Unlike you, Matt, I can and do distinguish between the rights of the private human individual Citizen and the privileged existence and behavior of all the other players in the market which should never be on par, as having equal rights and opportunities. It's that simple, and that is the crucial distinction that explains the fatal flaws in all oppressive politico-economic models and paradigms. Including yours.

Owned.

You're owned, as your system enslaves the landless, and compels them to purchase their freedom from landlords.

The disadvantage of your LVT implementation (on everyone, regardless of legal status), would ultimately be magnified many times over what we have even now, as LVT actually punishes low development and rewards only the biggest developers.

Nope. The biggest developers would develop the most valuable land; smaller developers would develop land of lower value. It's actually the same as it is now, only land would be allocated more efficiently and faster.

The biggest difference, and the most pernicious part, is that right now there is at least a pathway to freedom from paying any rents to anyone, public or private, through private landownership.

No, not a pathway to freedom: a pathway to privilege. Currently, there is a means by which to compel one's fellow citizens to labor for your benefit, without providing any value in return. You acknowledge this, and call it a right.

Under LVT there would be absolutely NO pathway to such freedom. All end users of land would be enslaved. And spare me your separate, wholly fictitious, worthless exemption, which is little more than an empty promise for "discount" on the rule that everyone is considered a land renter from the landlord state).

Nope. One need not occupy land that has value, even disregarding the exemption.

The way you defined "benefits provided by others"? Hell yes. I have absolutely no problem with existing [private, individual, Citizen] landowners reaping ANY benefits from the land they own, free of all taxes, including LVT. THAT IS WHO THE FUCKING BENEFITS ARE FOR!

Not really. When a government, say, builds an interstate, the benefit is intended to be for all of society. But in fact, landowners reap the benefit, and are enabled to charge others for the increased utility of being located near an interstate.

You have no principles, Matt.

Haha!

Especially not where individual liberties are concerned. All you're concerned with is advancing LVT.

You hate individual liberties. Your system would have every individual buy his freedom from another citizen.

I am opposed to LVT (YOUR VERSION) because it goes way too far, in that it includes individual landowner Citizens, especially residents of privately owned land, who exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right.

Of course they don't. The only reason they own the land is because the state opted to gift away the privilege of exclusive tenure of some part of the land that makes up the state. There was no legitimate basis for the state to do that.

They are the only entities on Earth who are entitled to PAY NO TAXES. NOT ONE. NOT EVER.

No one is entitled to that. Being part of society means you get rights, but you also have obligations. I know you want to reap without sowing, but too damn bad. Stop being so greedy.

Every other commercial entity, real or fictitious, exists and behaves as a matter of conditional privilege, not unalienable right. Those entities can be taxed out of existence, should the profit-maximizing state be stupid enough to do that. Not real human individuals, who are the ONLY entities worth giving a fuck about, and should be IMMUNE. PERPETUALLY.

Stupid garbage. Rights confer obligations: there cannot be one without the other. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Soooooo....under this LVT does the government owe taxes to...itself? Since it's using land for private gain.

Sure. Many LVT proponents believe the government should pay the LVT on government-owned land. That way, citizens can weigh the costs and benefits of such endeavors.

 

[James Madison]

Sure. Many LVT proponents believe the government should pay the LVT on government-owned land. That way, citizens can weigh the costs and benefits of such endeavors.

How does governmet acquire the funds? And to whom are they payed to?

 

[MattintheCrown]

How does governmet acquire the funds? And to whom are they payed to?

Tax revenues. The state.

 

[James Madison]

Tax revenues. The state.

The state pays taxes to itself? Since I use my land for personal gain and the state uses its land for personal gain, can I just pay the LVT to myself?

 

[MattintheCrown]

The state pays taxes to itself? Since I use my land for personal gain and the state uses its land for personal gain, can I just pay the LVT to myself?

Sigh. The state doesn't use land for its personal gain. The state is an instrument of society. It's supposed to represent its constituent members.