Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[Steven Douglas]

They are willing to pay for the advantage the bandit controls, but he is robbing them because there is no reason they should be paying HIM for it.

Oh I could agree, as long you replace HIM with ANYONE.

Consider the very similar case of a bandit stopping motorists on a public road and extorting $10 from them. They might be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road, but even you are not stupid or dishonest enough to claim they aren't being robbed.

You're referring to a policeman? Well, of course I agree. It is extortion, and they are being robbed. You said they "might" be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road -- but we wouldn't know that unless we asked them, would we. And asking one, or some, or even most, would not be the same as asking all.

Or consider a long-established protection racketeer who charges businesses for access to the local customer base (if he is not paid, he doesn't harm the business's premises, just lets it be known in the neighborhood that no one is to patronize the business)

Ah, yes, licensing requirements for ordinary people to engage in commerce. A total racket.

They are willing to pay for it <snip circular references>, but they are definitely being robbed.

No, we have not established in EITHER of the above cases that they are "willing" (voluntarily, of their own free will, in that they would pay even if the option to not pay existed).

The theft is in their being forced to pay someone who is not providing value in return, as you know perfectly well.

No, Roy, that's where you have it all fucked up. The theft, the extortion, is in being forced to pay. Period. Your attitude is like that of a classic racketeer, Roy. You think it's OK to force someone to pay, so long as you (to your satisfaction only) "provide value in return". Do you think a protection racketeer doesn't justify extortion by claiming that he is "providing value in return"?

And what about your loopy-stupid notion that A BANDIT is only going to take what merchants are "WILLING" to pay? What the fuck does that mean, "WILLING"? How do you know that they are willing to pay ANYONE -- let alone HIM? Not only do you have the concept of WILLING completely twisted, you have a fantasy notion of "benevolent bandits" that don't take absolutely everything they can possibly take when the opportunity presents itself.

A husband and wife stop at an average hotel. The advertised price is $100 a night, and they take a room. When they go to check out the next morning, the desk clerk hands them a bill for $350, along with a list of itemized charges. The husband explodes.

HUSBAND: All you can eat all-night buffet? We didn't eat anything here!
CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it.
HUSBAND: Olympic-sized pool, day spa and massage? We didn't use the pool or go anywhere near the spa!
CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it.
HUSBAND: Luxury conference center? We didn't use that either!
CLERK: Well, sir, it was there if you wanted it.

Livid, the man goes quiet, writes out a check and hands it to the manager.

"Sir," the manager says, "this check is only made out for $100."

"That's right," replies the man. "I deducted $200 for you having sex with my wife."

"I didn't have sex with your wife!" exclaims the manager.

"Well," the man replies, "it was there if you wanted it."

You cannot give someone something, assign your own value to it, force someone to pay, and pretend it is not extortion. You cannot assume that since others are willing to pay a given amount for a thing, that everyone else must be "willing" to pay that same amount. That's nasty, Roy. Stinky, icky, nasty.

Yep. Just like the protection racketeer's victims. There is just no reason they should pay HIM.

OR ANYONE ELSE (public or private). Not unless it was truly voluntary. Otherwise, there is no reason they should pay ANYONE, including the state if it behaves in the same way as a racketeer. States get no pass. The state becomes the ultimate protection racket when extortion is implemented -- the idea that ANY ENTITY (public or private, state or mafia-state) provides a service, has a monopoly on that service, assigns its own values to that service, and rationalizes force used to make others to pay for that monopolized service on the basis that "something was given in return".

Now you answer them.

I did. The answer is no to both, but unlike you, my answer is consistent by extension, across the board. It is the same whether it is a private bandit or a state bandit (and no, that is not using your circular reasoning as you apply it to landownership). A bandit is a bandit, and theft is theft in both cases. You are the only one who thinks that the state can license itself to be a bandit, and that somehow the nature of monopolistic theft, extortion and coercion become something else because it's Roy's nasty, despicable version of a state that is doing it. Meeza hatesa your version of gubmint, Roy.

No amount of twisting, squirming, conflating, obfuscating dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government (A SERVANT ONLY) is NOT synonymous with the private individuals that make up a community, which individuals created both the state and all private land's value. It is, therefore, those private individuals who should rightly enjoy the rents thereof, while the state does not, and therefore rightly should not, EVER behave as a bandit, under Color of Collectivist Non-Reasoning.

The fact that others simply "value" (are willing to pay for) ANYTHING, including land, does not an entitlement to others make. Not for ANYONE, public or private, singular or collective. So take your merry band of would-be LVT parasite state bandits elsewhere, Roy.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Surprise!

You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

You are stopping others from using what government, the community and nature provide.

The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes. That's what land value IS. And that is why land is so expensive.

So if you have a house or apartment or business, you have no problems with me stopping by and going in at any time- otherwise you are depriving me of the right to access your property. Otherwise, I can charge you for not letting me in.

You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

There isn't any government infrasturcture on my property to deny anybody access to and I am not stopping any social services by virtue of owning land (can you give examples if I am?) .

and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

Can I avoid the taxes if I leave the land as it is- no buildings, farms, or factories?

The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes. That's what land value IS. And that is why land is so expensive.

SO my annual tax should be the full value of my land? A 100% tax? That does not sound like a "simple and painless tax" as it has been described.

Do you tax all lands? Farms and grazing lands as well? Or do you exempt them to protect food production? Forests and deserts, lakes and mountains? What about government controlled lands (if the tax on land is 100% then the government will end up owning most of the land- even more than the do today)?

 

[Carson]

"Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit"

Yes in a way but not by the populace that most people identify as the Rich that are not paying their taxes.

Besides once that group was stripped of their wealth the counterfeiters would continue on their rampage of looting the planet.

What if the counterfeiters themselves became the group that had to pay their capital gains taxes like the rest of us? I'm not really sure it would pay anything off but it sure would cramp their style.

If we created something that cost a few cents and sold it for a dollar we would need to pay our taxes. Lots of honest businesses have been playing the game that way. Well what about the counterfeiters that print up a fiat note? What about the group that has printed up a bond out of thin air to trade for the notes? Should they be left out of the loop? Both parties could and should be held accountable to pay their taxes. Should they not?


Someday, if I'm ask, I'm going to have to point out taxation without representation for you. It's a real Duesy.

 

[Roy L]

So if you have a house or apartment or business, you have no problems with me stopping by and going in at any time- otherwise you are depriving me of the right to access your property. Otherwise, I can charge you for not letting me in.

No. We have already been over this a dozen times. You are wrong in two different ways: first, a house, apartment or business is not land, would not be available to you if I hadn't built (or paid someone to build) it, and IS therefore (unlike the land) rightly my property, so you have no right to go in without my permission. Second, if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land, and you have your individual exemption (UIE) that allows you to keep me off some land of your choice, then I've already compensated you for not being allowed to come onto the land I'm using, so you'll be staying out, thank you very much.

There isn't any government infrasturcture on my property to deny anybody access to

<yawn> Then how do you get to your property? As you know perfectly well, I did not say you were necessarily depriving others of access to government infrastructure ON your property (though many landowners do), but to infrastructure that is accessible FROM your property.

Stop being so dishonest.

and I am not stopping any social services by virtue of owning land (can you give examples if I am?) .

False. You are depriving others of the opportunity to access government services that are available FROM your property, whether it is local schools, Medicare/Medicaid, police and fire protection, or whatever. You know this.

Can I avoid the taxes if I leave the land as it is- no buildings, farms, or factories?

Certainly not, any more than you can avoid paying for a loaf of bread you take home from the bakery if you decide not to eat it. You're depriving others of it even if you don't use it yourself. I'm not sure there is any clearer way to explain that to you.

SO my annual tax should be the full value of my land?

The full rental value. You're getting confused between two different kinds of value. The land's exchange value (what you think of as its "value") is the discounted capitalization of all its future after-tax rental values; so because the tax would leave no rental value in your hands, its exchange value would disappear (i.e., you would effectively pay it all at once when the tax was passed, but without actually paying any money). You'd then just pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure.

A 100% tax? That does not sound like a "simple and painless tax" as it has been described.

I don't think anyone has claimed LVT would be painless for landowners: they would lose their privilege of pocketing other people's taxes, and the capital asset value that goes with it, and that's certainly going to hurt. But the amount of the tax is just the amount you would be paying if you were renting the land from an ordinary private owner.

Do you tax all lands? Farms and grazing lands as well?

All lands, in principle. Lands in use for government purposes would be listed and appraised, so governments could decide if their use was preferable to a private use.

Or do you exempt them to protect food production?

Applying LVT to farm and grazing land will INCREASE food production and REDUCE food prices by reducing speculative landholding and increasing allocative efficiency. You still haven't understood that LVT is TOTALLY UNLIKE OTHER TAXES because it makes the economy fairer and more efficient, not less fair and less efficient.

Forests and deserts, lakes and mountains?

Forests are valuable and would likely be taxed; deserts, lakes and mountains usually have little or no rental value, and would not be taxed unless they did.

What about government controlled lands (if the tax on land is 100% then the government will end up owning most of the land- even more than the do today)?

Nope. Government won't want any more land than it needs for its own purposes, because that would just reduce revenue. You still haven't understood that LVT ALIGNS GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Applying LVT to farm and grazing land will INCREASE food production and REDUCE food prices by reducing speculative landholding and increasing allocative efficiency. You still haven't understood that LVT is TOTALLY UNLIKE OTHER TAXES because it makes the economy fairer and more efficient, not less fair and less efficient.

Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386844-Robin-Hood-Tax/page3 I assumed that we kept the budget the same size it is today. If we include all farmlands and grazing lands and urban areas in our taxable base, the LVT on an acre of land would be $3,485. Meanwhile, the average value of farmland in the country is $2,140 an acre. Now you are adding a tax which is going to increase his costs by $3,485 a year more than he currently pays for his expenses. 50% more than the land itself is worth in this example.

But we can ignore the projected numbers and simply look at what ANY increase in taxes will have on farming and food production and food prices.

So what effect would this tax have on a farmer? Two things will happen. One- fewer people will be able to afford to farm- the margins are low and some of them will be forced to sell. It will also discourage others from becoming farmers because the costs of becoming one will be higher. Unless they are able to raise the prices of food enough to pay for the taxes. That is not going to happen since there is a lot of competition in producing food- not only from farmers in this country but farmers in other countries as well. The tax will give a massive advantage to foreign growers- a bid subsidy to them since they are not facing this tax. And the selling off of farmland will reduce the food supply and raise the prices of foods. Foreign cheaper food floods the market at prices below what the US can produce them at- more US farms fail.

Can you explain to me just how this is supposed to INCREASE food production when it will actually have the opposite effect? You can't because it does not happen that way. Higher taxes on anything leads to increased production? Only in a fantasy world- not in reality. Otherwise an infinity tax would lead to infinite productivity if raising taxes increases production.

(as a further number I calculated that if you exempt farming and grazing lands the tax jumps to over $60,000 an acre per year which is 50% higher than the before tax median income in the country).

Taxes do not increase efficiency. They discourage activities. If you want to discourage something, put a tax on it- that encourages people to do it less. Want people to smoke less? Raise the taxes on cigarettes. Taxing land for food production (or whatever) discourages producing more food. It increases the cost of that activity and it will also increase the cost of food.

If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it. That will leave it to two entities- those with lots of money and the government- owning most of the land. If you want the average person to own more land and keep it out of "exploiters" hands (those who would use it to their own maximum gain- not "society's benefit"), taxing is the wrong direction to take. Unless you believe those two groups will act in totally altruistic manners. They will persue their own interests.

 

[Cowlesy]

Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805, and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.

 

[Steven Douglas]

...if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land...

Such a deprivation is not grounds for an entitlement to anyone, singular or collective.

In the absence of land monopolies, public or private, everyone is justly deprived of their liberty to use other people's land (yes I'm begging that question deliberately), with no rents due or owing.

I did not say you were necessarily depriving others of access to government infrastructure ON your property (though many landowners do), but to infrastructure that is accessible FROM your property.

All infrastructure, including roads and other common lands, is common property, and therefore not for direct profit, public or private. The state is a SERVANT of the infrastructure it creates-at-someone-else's-expense. Thus, the state is not in the "business" of providing infrastructure. Stop referring to the state as if it was a going for-profit concern.

You are depriving others of the opportunity to access government services that are available FROM your property, whether it is local schools, Medicare/Medicaid, police and fire protection, or whatever.

Yes, isn't it sad that nobody can order a pizza for delivery using your home address, and must use their own address instead. And don't conflate police and fire protection with local schools and other state monopolized, highly value distorted monstrosities, as if they were on par with one another. Your leftist statist colors are showing.

HALF-BAKED METAPHOR ALERT:

Certainly not, any more than you can avoid paying for a loaf of bread you take home from the bakery if you decide not to eat it. You're depriving others of it even if you don't use it yourself.

The state is not an LVT Land Rental Bakery Store, much less one that has ALL LAND on its "shelf".

The full rental value.

...as in, everybody is now a renter, and the state is the landlord.

You'd then just pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure.

Under LVT, you'd then just pay the state the market appraised rent for secure conditional exclusive tenure.

There, fixed your bed of roses for you. You left out the reality of the thorns.

I don't think anyone has claimed LVT would be painless for landowners: they would lose their privilege of pocketing other people's taxes...

Flagrant, dishonest question begging. Land rents are not "other people's taxes". We're not reasoning this through with your jilted mindset, Roy.

But the amount of the tax is just the amount you would be paying if you were renting the land from an ordinary private owner.

...and the very thing LVT proponents rail against as so much evil. But it suddenly becomes good when the state is doing it (read=tickles the wealth-redistribution sensibilities of geocommunists). Forget that if everyone was a landowner, the amount of rent they would be paying to an ordinary private owner (namely, themselves) would be ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. How much better is that?

Government won't want any more land than it needs for its own purposes, because that would just reduce revenue.

Yeah, ignore things like zoning laws and land withheld from usage such that artificial scarcity drives up values. Ignore the micro-economics of supply and demand, and how the market really works. LVT is magically immune to all of that, as it even has its own laws of economics (geonomics, doncha know), which operates in a completely different realm.

You still haven't understood that LVT ALIGNS GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

That is like saying that Michael Vick was only aligning his interests with those of the dogs in his fighting pits. After all, the dogs were willing to fight, and those betting on the doges wanted them to fight. And no matter which dogs wins, the state gets its pound of flesh from the victor. And the fact that victors will exists can serve as proof positive of its swimming success.

In Roy's fantasy regime, government's methodologies under LVT will mimic private market methodologies, as the state now gets to play the role of capitalist (albeit a completely monopolistic one). Once the state "corners the market on land rents", and becomes a for-profit landlord with a monopoly on those rents for an entire factor of production, the stage will be set for a nice game of Let's You And Them Fight, which ensures that everything is equitable and fair (to the state and the victors).

 

[EcoWarrier]

Originally Posted by Roy L
...if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land...

Such a deprivation is not grounds for an entitlement to anyone, singular or collective.

What the hell are you babbling about? Did your friend Norman tell you to write that? We all own the land. Look up Sovereignty. That means we can all wander over it. But if someone fences off land for essential private living needs or business, that deprives the rest of us to walk on that land. So title (as set of rights) is issued for land to prevent others walking on that land. Roy clearly and simply states that if you deprive us all of walking on our land you quite rightly must pay the rest of us for that privilege. LVT is the perfect mechanism for that.

Roy's point of paying to occupy land is one one point of the justification of LVT. Another is reclaiming community created wealth that soaked into the land crystallizing as land values.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805, and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.

And quite right! You a have the right to occupy the land. Not because of your ancestors holding it for that period, which is totally irrelevant to the current occupation and use of the land.

By the way, your ancestors did legally steal the land from its previous occupiers in an invasion by the the United States into the adjacent lands to the west. But that does not mean the land should be taken from you today.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost.

You must stop making things up.

 

[EcoWarrier]

If we created something that cost a few cents and sold it for a dollar we would need to pay our taxes. Lots of honest businesses have been playing the game that way.

The current economic system is flawed. We have had TWO world-wide crashes within 80 years of each other. It would have been sooner only for WW2. There are countless booms & busts between which greatly affect the economy and people's lives. The system is prone to causing wars.

The fact that the current economic system is flawed is beyond doubt as its record proves. All the most powerful computers in the world could not prevent the last crash. The system is prone to systemic failure. Most think it is a matter of more control on the financial sector that will prevent the problem from reoccurring. That is bunkum. The system needs replacing.

The perfect system that will rectify the inherent problems of the current flawed system is Geonomics. The current business and land laws stay the same. Common wealth is used to pay for community services leaving private wealth in private hands untouched. Production is not discouraged but encouraged. The evil speculation is naturally harnessed preventing booms and busts and world-wide crashes.

 

[EcoWarrier]

I am a land owner (or soon it will be all mine- it is more than 90% mine now- my final mortgage payment goes in by the end of the year). Can you prove what I have stolen from you? Demonstrate this loss I have imposed on society and how would you calculate the value of it?

You will find that the title of the land is "yours" as soon as you sign the mortgage documents NOT on the final payment. The mortgage provider cannot walk onto your land or into your house at any time.

Say the value of the land you bought when you took up the mortgage was $100,000. Now it is worth $400,000. That is an unearned gain of $300,000. Where did this $300,000 in value come from? The sky? mmm, no. By you painting the window frames of the house? mmmm, no.

The increased $300,000 value was created by economic community activity which soaked into the land crystallizing as land values. That is economic fact. The landowner, you, did not make the land values. Currently this common wealth, which you, did NOT create is appropriated by you. That is legalized theft. Freeloading

 

[Roy L]

Oh I could agree, as long you replace HIM with ANYONE.

Unfortunately, that's only an option if no one can stop anyone else from using it. But they can. So at this point, you are just farting fairy dust.

You're referring to a policeman?

No, I'm not, and you know it, so STOP LYING. There is no reason to think a policeman would stop motorists and extort $10 from them, any more than a fireman, clergyman, milkman or frogman, so you are just telling cretinous lies again to evade the issue.

As you know, but are lying about, I'm referring to a bandit: a filthy, greedy, evil little parasite who thinks he can rob people and get away with it, like a landowner.

SO ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION INSTEAD OF DISHONESTLY TRYING TO TWIST AND WEASEL AND SLIME YOUR WAY OUT OF IT.

God, your stupid, filthy, despicable dishonesty is a waste of time and brain energy.

YOU KNOW that trying to pretend I was referring to a policeman when you know very well I wasn't is DISHONEST. YOU KNOW THAT. Why can't you understand that when you never have any way to defend your views but by dishonesty, it can only be because those views are FALSE and EVIL?

Well, of course I agree. It is extortion, and they are being robbed.

Answer the question I posed, not the one you so dishonestly made up and substituted for it.

If a policeman has no authority to charge the motorists tolls, then yes, of course they are being robbed because he is then acting as a bandit, not a policeman -- as you know perfectly well, but have dishonestly chosen to pretend not to know. The situation is quite different, however, if the policeman is acting under the authority of the community that PROVIDED the road. Then he has every right to stop them and require a toll of $10, because the community that employs him is providing the road. YOU KNOW THIS. You have merely realized that you have to evade it, because it proves your beliefs are false and EVIL.

You said they "might" be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road -- but we wouldn't know that unless we asked them, would we. And asking one, or some, or even most, would not be the same as asking all.

What on earth are you on about? Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant?

Ah, yes, licensing requirements for ordinary people to engage in commerce. A total racket.

Yes, it is, but you are again just baldly lying about what I plainly wrote, which specifically concerned a protection racket that used intimidation of customers -- i.e., control of access to the market, such as a landowner also uses to extort unearned wealth -- to extort money from businesses.

Why can't you understand that when you never have any way to defend your views but by dishonesty, it can only be because those views are FALSE and EVIL?

No, we have not established in EITHER of the above cases that they are "willing" (voluntarily, of their own free will, in that they would pay even if the option to not pay existed).

Now you are flatly lying about what it means to be "willing to pay" for something. It does not mean one would pay even if the option not to pay for what one took existed. That is just your absurd and dishonest fabrication. It means one willingly pays rather than do without the benefit received in exchange for the payment.

YOU KNOW THIS. YOU JUST DECIDED DELIBERATELY TO LIE ABOUT IT.

No, Roy, that's where you have it all fucked up.

<yawn> I predict that you will now tell another absurd lie:

The theft, the extortion, is in being forced to pay. Period.

?? HUH? So being forced to pay for a restaurant meal you just ordered and ate is "theft" and "extortion"? Really, Steven? REALLY???? Being forced to pay for water you have used from the municipal water supply is "theft" and "extortion"? REALLY???

No. It is not. AND YOU KNOW IT.

YOU KNOW that being forced to pay for something YOU DELIBERATELY TOOK from someone else is NOT theft or extortion. You know it, but you deliberately decided to LIE about it.

You just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

Your attitude is like that of a classic racketeer, Roy.

No, that is just another absurd lie from you. I have proved it is the landowner who functions EXACTLY as a racketeer, charging his victims for benefits someone else provides.

You think it's OK to force someone to pay, so long as you (to your satisfaction only) "provide value in return".

Lie. The market decides value, not me. You again just deliberately lied about what I have plainly written MANY TIMES.

Do you think a protection racketeer doesn't justify extortion by claiming that he is "providing value in return"?

I doubt it very much; and even if he does, he doesn't claim it seriously. He knows he is lying if he makes that claim because he knows that he in fact ISN'T providing any value, because HIS VICTIMS ARE WORSE OFF for the transaction, NOT BETTER OFF.

YOU KNOW THIS.

And what about your loopy-stupid notion that A BANDIT is only going to take what merchants are "WILLING" to pay? What the fuck does that mean, "WILLING"?

Oh, get a freakin' dictionary, and learn how to use it. Your relentless refusal to understand plain English in order to avoid knowing the facts that ordinary English words are used to identify is excruciatingly dishonest and tiresome.

How do you know that they are willing to pay ANYONE -- let alone HIM?

Because they keep using the pass. Duh. And the scenario is not "loopy-stupid" at all: IT IS EXACTLY HOW REAL-LIFE PROTECTION RACKETS WORK. The racketeer estimates how much a given business can afford to pay on a regular basis, and then demands it as a rent for leaving the business alone. He doesn't want to drive his victims out of business -- kill the geese that lay the golden eggs -- any more than the landowner does. So he takes only what they are willing to pay to stay in business.

Not only do you have the concept of WILLING completely twisted,

No, I do not. It is you who have made up a false and absurd notion of what it means to be "willing to pay" for something. According to your absurd lie, someone who goes shopping at the grocery store is not willing to pay for what they take home, because they would have preferred to get it for free. It's just a flat-out, absurd lie about the meaning of ordinary English words.

you have a fantasy notion of "benevolent bandits" that don't take absolutely everything they can possibly take when the opportunity presents itself.

It's no fantasy, and they certainly aren't benevolent. This bandit is just smarter than your claimed bandit. He is operating a protection racket, like a landowner. Much easier, more reliable and profitable. That is the point of the hypothetical example, which you of course have to contrive some means to evade.

You cannot give someone something, assign your own value to it, force someone to pay, and pretend it is not extortion.

And...? How is that, or your little hotel story, relevant to anything I have said? I am not assigning value to anything. The market is. I am not giving anyone anything and then forcing them to pay for it, they are taking it, and then refusing to pay for it.

You cannot assume that since others are willing to pay a given amount for a thing, that everyone else must be "willing" to pay that same amount.

I have neither made nor implied any such assumption, and you know it. So you're again reliant on strawman lies.

But when someone takes a thing, they'd better be willing to either pay for it or give it back.

That's nasty, Roy. Stinky, icky, nasty.

That's lying, Steven. Stinky, icky, nasty. Disgraceful. Dishonest. Despicable.

EVIL.

OR ANYONE ELSE (public or private).

Wrong again. As soon as someone can gain control of an advantageous natural opportunity (i.e., forcibly remove others' liberty to use it, as the bandit or landowner does in the pass), and someone else wants to use it, the one who controls it can make them pay him for doing nothing: i.e., he has a rent seeking privilege. The only way to prevent this extortion of payment is not to allow exclusive control, and treat the opportunity as a common resource available to all. But absence of administrative control can lead to a tragedy of the commons. As a result, given the need to control access to the opportunity, the only possible fair way to allocate exclusive access to that opportunity is to require the one who gets it justly to compensate all whom he deprives of it, not just the one who gained control of it.

The merchants are paying the landowner not to deprive them of the exact same market access they're paying the protection racketeer not to deprive them of. That is very much the point.

Not unless it was truly voluntary.

Yes, well, we know how you lied about what "willing to pay" means, so let's see what you can do to the meaning of "truly voluntary."

Otherwise, there is no reason they should pay ANYONE, including the state if it behaves in the same way as a racketeer.

But when the state or government does NOT act as a racketeer but as the guardian of its citizens' rights, they SHOULD pay the state, for three distinct and individually sufficient reasons, as I demonstrated in my previous message:

1. It created the rental value of what nature provided for free;
2. It makes just compensation to all who are deprived of their liberty to use what nature provided for free; and
3. Its legitimate function is to secure and reconcile the equal liberty rights of all to access, use, and benefit from what nature provided for free, and it is actually doing so.

States get no pass.

Yes, they most certainly do, because it is their FUNCTION AND DUTY to secure and reconcile the EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL to access natural opportunities, as explained above.

The state becomes the ultimate protection racket when extortion is implemented

A voluntary, value-for-value-transaction like LVT is not extortion, so stop lying.

-- the idea that ANY ENTITY (public or private, state or mafia-state) provides a service, has a monopoly on that service, assigns its own values to that service,

The market assigns value, not the state. You just ALWAYS have to lie about that.

and rationalizes force used to make others to pay for that monopolized service on the basis that "something was given in return".

Strawman. What is given in return is very specific: access to the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities government and the community provide, including exclusive, secure tenure to the physical qualities nature provides.

I did.

No, you just tried to change the subject.

The answer is no to both, but unlike you, my answer is consistent by extension, across the board.

No. My answer is consistent, yours is merely an attempt to beg the question by defining the state as a bandit.

It is the same whether it is a private bandit or a state bandit

Blatant question begging fallacy. You have given no answer for the relevant case when the state is not a bandit.

(and no, that is not using your circular reasoning as you apply it to landownership).

You constantly claim my reasoning is circular, but have never offered an explanation of how it is circular (hint: it isn't).

A bandit is a bandit, and theft is theft in both cases.

But the state is not a bandit. That's just another absurdity intended to enable atrocities.

You are the only one who thinks that the state can license itself to be a bandit,

Absurdity intended to enable atrocity. Calling the state a bandit is just your infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" mantra. The state does not "license itself to be a bandit." It obtains its just powers from the consent of the governed, to whom it is accountable.

YOUR claim, however, is that the LANDOWNER can license himself to be a bandit, and be accountable to no one. Sorry, no.

and that somehow the nature of monopolistic theft,

Exaction of land rent is always inherently monopolistic. It is theft when done by private landowners who did not create the value they are taking.

extortion and coercion become something else because it's Roy's nasty, despicable version of a state that is doing it.

I realize you think a government that secures and reconciles people's equal rights to liberty and justice by implementing voluntary, value-for-value transactions in place of coercive landowner extortion and parasitism is nasty and despicable.

Meeza hatesa your version of gubmint, Roy.

You mainly hatesa liberty, justice and truth.

No amount of twisting, squirming, conflating, obfuscating dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government (A SERVANT ONLY) is NOT synonymous with the private individuals that make up a community,

I've never said or implied that it was -- indeed, I've stated that it's not -- so you are again just baldly lying about what I have plainly written.

which individuals created both the state and all private land's value.

No, that's just a bald collectivist fabrication. Land value comes mainly from the services and infrastructure government provides (see the Henry George Theorem), which are by definition NOT contributed by any undifferentiated collective of private individuals but by government employees/contractors.

It is, therefore, those private individuals who should rightly enjoy the rents thereof,

??? ROTFL!!! Ah, no. You are just spewing blatant COLLECTIVIST fallacies of composition and division. The individuals who create land value are producers. They are therefore not at all the same private individuals who would enjoy the land rents: landowners. You merely committed the same COLLECTIVIST logical fallacies Karl Marx committed when he claimed that because "the workers" collectively produced the capital goods in a factory, "the workers" were collectively entitled to the factory's profits, ignoring the fact that they weren't the SAME workers. Likewise, you are committing the collectivist fallacy of ignoring the fact that the individuals who create land value by their productive efforts and investments are by no means the same individuals who own the land and thus get to pocket the resulting value.

while the state does not, and therefore rightly should not, EVER behave as a bandit,

It's merely your false, absurd and unsupported claim that the state is or behaves as a bandit.

under Color of Collectivist Non-Reasoning.

BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

See YOUR OWN Collectivist Non-Reasoning, above.

You are so done.

The fact that others simply "value" (are willing to pay for) ANYTHING, including land, does not an entitlement to others make.

Yes, it does. Because land was already there, with no help from anyone, and all would otherwise be at liberty to use it, others' willingness to pay for land entitles those who are deprived of it to just compensation for the removal of their liberty to use it. Anything less is robbery and enslavement.

Not for ANYONE, public or private, singular or collective.

Refuted above. You can't just take people's rights to liberty from them and not make just compensation. That's blatant robbery and enslavement.

So take your merry band of would-be LVT parasite state bandits elsewhere, Roy.

It is the private landowner who is the pure parasite and bandit, as already proved by your inability to answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

 

[Roy L]

Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805,

You think your ancestors having stolen it from the aboriginal population gives you a valid title to it. Fascinating.

and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie

You are a parasite, you like it, so you intend to go on being a parasite -- and you are aware that it is owning land that enables you to be a parasite. Simple.

to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.

We're not Marxists. The first thing you learn when you decide to oppose recovery of the publicly created rent of land for public purposes and benefit is that you have to lie. Looks like you've made a good start.

 

[Roy L]

Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386844-Robin-Hood-Tax/page3

I already refuted your idiotic numbers here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386844-Robin-Hood-Tax&p=4620708&viewfull=1#post4620708

I assumed that we kept the budget the same size it is today. If we include all farmlands and grazing lands and urban areas in our taxable base, the LVT on an acre of land would be $3,485. Meanwhile, the average value of farmland in the country is $2,140 an acre.

What part of "VALUE, NOT AREA" are you having trouble understanding?

Now you are adding a tax which is going to increase his costs by $3,485 a year more than he currently pays for his expenses. 50% more than the land itself is worth in this example.

Utter nonsense.

But we can ignore the projected numbers and simply look at what ANY increase in taxes will have on farming and food production and food prices.

Or rather you could, if you knew any economics...

So what effect would this tax have on a farmer? Two things will happen. One- fewer people will be able to afford to farm- the margins are low and some of them will be forced to sell.

Inefficient producers will be forced to sell.... to more efficient ones. That is a GOOD thing.

It will also discourage others from becoming farmers because the costs of becoming one will be higher.

Nope. FAR lower, as they will be able to acquire good, fertile land at no up-front cost.

Unless they are able to raise the prices of food enough to pay for the taxes.

Please read my previous refutation of this silly garbage. The url is above.

That is not going to happen since there is a lot of competition in producing food- not only from farmers in this country but farmers in other countries as well. The tax will give a massive advantage to foreign growers- a bid subsidy to them since they are not facing this tax. And the selling off of farmland will reduce the food supply and raise the prices of foods. Foreign cheaper food floods the market at prices below what the US can produce them at- more US farms fail.

More silly garbage. LVT cannot be passed on to consumers, employees, or anyone else.

Can you explain to me just how this is supposed to INCREASE food production when it will actually have the opposite effect?

It won't have the opposite effect. It will increase food production by making it uneconomic to hold land out of production or to produce inefficiently on it.

You can't because it does not happen that way.

I just did.

Higher taxes on anything leads to increased production?

Depends on what the tax is levied on. A tax on anything in fixed supply, like land, will increase production because the owners won't want to lose money to the tax.

Only in a fantasy world- not in reality.

Yes, in reality.

Otherwise an infinity tax would lead to infinite productivity if raising taxes increases production.

Only raising SOME kinds of taxes raises production, and there is a limit to how high they can go before they start reducing production.

Taxes do not increase efficiency.

A tax on a factor in fixed supply does.

They discourage activities.

Most do. But not LVT. This is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years and is not disputed by any competent economist.

If you want to discourage something, put a tax on it- that encourages people to do it less.

We want people to own land less.

Want people to smoke less? Raise the taxes on cigarettes. Taxing land for food production (or whatever) discourages producing more food. It increases the cost of that activity and it will also increase the cost of food.

The tax is not on producing food, it is on OWNING LAND.

If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it.

That will discourage everyone from buying it, which is the general idea.

That will leave it to two entities- those with lots of money and the government- owning most of the land.

If the people with lots of money want to have less money, buying land in a LVT system would be a good way to do it.

If you want the average person to own more land and keep it out of "exploiters" hands (those who would use it to their own maximum gain- not "society's benefit"), taxing is the wrong direction to take.

Taxing land will actually lead to more average people owning land, as it would be free to buy.

Unless you believe those two groups will act in totally altruistic manners. They will persue their own interests.

That is what we are counting on.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Nope. FAR lower, as they will be able to acquire good, fertile land at no up-front cost.

Even if the price of aquiring land goes down (due to lower demand since fewer people can pay the taxes on it) the LVT adds considerably to the annual cost of running a farm or business.

The tax is not on producing food, it is on OWNING LAND.

That is true but the cost of the land is part of the costs of producing the food. The farmer has to able to sell his food at a price he can pay his expenses including any taxes like LVT otherwise he will not farm (or produce some other good). Thus if his costs go up, he has to raise prices to cover it or quit farming.

More silly garbage. LVT cannot be passed on to consumers, employees, or anyone else.

See my above statement. If it cannot be passed along, the person being taxed closes their business because they cannot make enough money to cover their costs.

Only raising SOME kinds of taxes raises production, and there is a limit to how high they can go before they start reducing production.

Can you provide examples? (LVT is not one but there aren't any other ones either so this is not unique to LVT- unless the tax is on the competition which gives one producer an advantage over another which is another way of saying that if one person is taxed and one isn't the one not taxed has an advantage over the taxed one and can price them out of business).

And then you end with completely contradicting statements. More people will own land. Fewer people will own land.

If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it.
That will discourage everyone from buying it, which is the general idea.

Taxing land will actually lead to more average people owning land, as it would be free to buy.

And you have not explained how higher taxes leads to higher productivity and lower prices (the whole gist of this argument here).

You should try to take an introduction to Economics course. It may help you if you are serious about learing this topic.

 

[awake]

1. How do you stop the LVT assessors, who must hold a monopoly of assessment and collection, from raising the assessments for their own selfish political interests?

2. Governemnts are by thier nature unable to calculate and budget properly. They constantly waste tax revenue thanks to the "socialist calculation problem". Whats to stop them from continually raising the LVT and adding misc. additions like environmental fees on top of the LVT when the government is blowing out deficits?

3. Where is the great check and balance that would prevent your LVT funded government from expropriating all incomes and wealth from the use of land?

4. What is the fail safe to stop the inevitable mountains of regulations, fees and taxes under other names from being levied by the LVT assessors?

5. What is to stop certain LVT payers from lobbing the LVT funded monopolists to spend money to improve their property at the expense of other LVT payers? In exchange for votes of course...

Monopoly is something which brings down your whole system. Which is the very problem of the current system.

 

[Steven Douglas]

LVT cannot be passed on to consumers, employees, or anyone else.

Yeah, that's just one of the magical properties of LVT, I guess, as the money required to pay the tax will magically materialize strictly out of landowner thin air only. If the landowner tries to pass that tax along to others, it will be like the Witch of the West reaching for the ruby slippers after a house falls on her sister. I am told that the resulting magic shock will make a sound that you won't want to hear twiced.

ROY'S MISAPPREHENSION OR OUTRIGHT DECEPTION

Unlike Roy, what most geocommunists are really saying (in even their deceptively forked and slippery reasoning) is that the annual rental value (and therefore cost in terms of LVT levied) does not inure directly to the benefit (is not part of the equity of) the landowner. Those land rents go to another entity instead, called "the state". Because LVT is presumably applied proportionately to all land, it is not that LVT cannot be passed onto tenants or anyone else; it is only that LVT cannot be passed along in the form of higher rents, relative only to a producer of similar goods on less valuable land within that same regime. This is based on a number of assumptions, one being that the tenant is already paying full market value for the rents in what is assumed to be a perfectly competitive market.

Consider this passage from a prominent geocommunist site:

IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS ON IN HIGHER PRICES, LOWER WAGES OR HIGHER RENTS. SOURCE
Competition makes it impossible for a business producing goods on a valuable site to charge more per item than one producing similar goods on less valuable land - after all, producers and traders at different locations are paying different rents to landlords now, yet like goods generally sell for much the same price and employers pay their workers comparable wages. The tax cannot be passed on to a tenant who is already paying the full market rent.

"...impossible...to charge more...than one producing similar goods on less valuable land..."

Unlike Roy, most geofascists are not claiming that LVT "cannot be passed onto consumers" (period), as they are "already paying the full market rent". That would indeed be disingenuous fantasy rubbish born of economics ignorance or outright deception. ALL COSTS are ultimately born by end users, even if that "end user" ends up being a party that bore a cost, but was unable to pass it along (e.g., as a finished good). The last one to pay is, by definition, the "end user", and is where the buck always stops. Thus, the only thing that "cannot be passed on" is a higher charge that results in additional profit on the rents.

LVT proponents see prices charged by landowners with improvements as not capturing so-called "externalities" associated with collectivized "public goods" which contribute to land having market value in the first place. In other words, the landowner is seen as benefiting from land value that he did not create or produce. LVT is in place for the sole purpose of "capturing" that value (taking the land rents portion of what the landowner receives from the end user).

Terms like "higher" or "charge more" are the qualifiers used by most geoists, who are at least honest enough to include them, even as a fact-obfuscating verbal sleight of hand. The implication, to the uncritically thinking, is that such costs cannot be passed along at all, when that is not what is claimed. But it is that very qualifier that Roy omits altogether, as he explicitly and falsely states that LVT "cannot be passed along to end users" (period).

The question is not whether LVT is "passed along", but rather whether it can be passed along in the form of "higher rents", which makes it a question of EQUITY OWNERSHIP, or who benefits from costs which are passed along and distributed throughout the supply chain. Thus, the annual rental value of land, which under an LVT regime comes as a levy on the rental value of the factor of production called land, is no longer free to the titleholder of the land, any more than it does the end user that bears all costs. All that the [relatively] "honest" geoists are really claiming is that this cost of production (which will always be born by the end user, whomever that may be), will no longer inure to the direct benefit of the landowner.

A tax on anything in fixed supply, like land, will increase production because the owners won't want to lose money to the tax.

Actually, it will only maintain the treadmill of the needless production requirement on the parts of people who will be forced perpetually to stay ahead of the wealth that is lost and siphoned away from them by a tax that is always passed along to end users. That means that the very "community" that provided the amenities and economic activity that gave land its value in the first place foots the bill twice - first, through the economic activity they paid for, which increased land rents in the first place, and then again as a charge by the state to landowners, which are then passed onto the end users in the community as an additional cost of existence for what they, as a collectivized "community" were said to provide.

Under LVT, land is a factor of production (input leading to a finished good) that is monopolistically owned "administered for a fee on behalf of everyone to whom it is said to belong to in the community", and on whose behalf it is rented out -- for a fee -- by the state. You are only paying for the use of what geocommunists like Roy claim that nature, government and the community "provides". Thus, land is treated in the economic sense as an unfinished good, or input to production, which belongs to the taxing jurisdiction (the state), on the auspices of administration-for-profit on behalf of a nebulous, socialized incorporated collective called "the community".

The value of land (the annual rental value, as appraised by the state) is based on a number of parties that compete for a demonstrated willingness to pay for its usage. That is on the over-simplified macro-economic demand side of the equation. On the supply side, this value is attributed to a hodgepodge kitchen-sink admixture of "what nature, government and community provide", which, if broken down, would include Direct Labor, Direct Materials (the land itself, which is free to, but belongs to, the state/community), Overhead, and Carrying Costs. All of this results in an Overhead variable to the landowner, who is not necessarily the end user who bears all the costs, regardless who benefited throughout the supply chain.

Thus, land, as a raw material with inputs of its own (under the LVT paradigm of nature, government and community) that give it value as an unfinished good with a rental fee attached, is nothing more than a cost of production. It is Overhead which affects landowner equity. Geofascists like Roy claim that it is, in part, for infrastructure and economic advantages that have already presumably been paid for. But that is only in the sense that land is treated as something akin to that which might be found on a bakery store shelf. It is ultimately "paid for" by the end user only.

As the geocommunist site linked to above says, "Land (unlike goods and services) has no cost of production." That is true in the case of raw land, but while there may be no cost of production, that does not mean that land cannot represent a cost, as the very existence of LVT proves. SOMETHING is being charged for -- something other than land, which is related and tied to its rental value, is said to be "produced". Nature might have "provided" raw land at no cost, and without production by anyone, individually or collectively, but "government" under an LVT regime does not provide ANYTHING without a cost.

Thus (from the same site), "In reality land acquires a scarcity value owing to the competing needs of the community for living, working and leisure space. Thus land value owes nothing to individual effort and everything to the community at large."

And by that nebulous thing called "the community at large", they are socialistically conflating government infrastructure along with the private economic activities and amenities that give private entities the ability and willingness to pay for exclusive use of land.

We want people to own land less...[LVT] will discourage everyone from buying it, which is the general idea.

Ah, what a confession from a would-be society-manipulating geocommunist. Would that all of them would state that as their fundamental premise, before launching into their Geocommunist Manifesto.

Taxing land will actually lead to more average people owning land, as it would be free to buy.

Hardly "free to buy". It would be cheaper to buy, but only because it is most definitely not "free to own". Under a "propertarian" regime, land can be bought and actually owned. Under an LVT regime, land can never be bought. "Landownership" under LVT is no different, in effect, than taking out an interest-only variable rate loan. AKA - you PAY FOREVER, BUT NEVER OWN.

 

[Roy L]

Even if the price of aquiring land goes down (due to lower demand since fewer people can pay the taxes on it) the LVT adds considerably to the annual cost of running a farm or business.

No, it does not. LVT adds nothing to the annual cost of running a farm or business, because it is exactly the same whether any farm or business is run on the land or not. And by replacing unfair and harmful taxes, it REDUCES the cost of running a farm or business. The only "activity" it increases the cost of is owning land. But owning land doesn't produce any food.

GET IT?

That is true but the cost of the land is part of the costs of producing the food.

No, it isn't. As Ricardo showed 200 years ago, the cost of land is the payment for an economic advantage. It has no effect on the price of food, which is determined by supply and demand, and is the same for farmers who pay the most rent as for those who pay no rent.

The farmer has to able to sell his food at a price he can pay his expenses including any taxes like LVT otherwise he will not farm (or produce some other good). Thus if his costs go up, he has to raise prices to cover it or quit farming.

But LVT makes his costs go down, not up, because it reduces the acquisition cost of land and replaces taxes that increase his costs. The producer no longer has to pay for government twice.

See my above statement.

Refuted.

If it cannot be passed along, the person being taxed closes their business because they cannot make enough money to cover their costs.

False. Consider two farmers farming the same amount and quality of land. One owns the land he farms, the other rents it. They are both selling their crops at the same price. They are both equally efficient. They both use the same production methods. Because the owner/farmer owns the land, he is pocketing the land rent as well as the profit from farming, so his income is maybe triple the renting farmer's income. Now introduce LVT. The renting farmer is completely unaffected, as he now just pays the exact same rent to the government that he formerly paid to the landowner. His profits stay the same, his selling price stays the same, etc. The farmer who owns his land is not happy because now he only makes as much money as the renting farmer, but there is no reason for him to close his business or go bankrupt: he can't get back his unearned income by giving up his earned income. He just no longer enjoys the unfair advantage he had over the renting farmer through owning the land.

Can you provide examples?

See above.

(LVT is not one

Yes, it is.

but there aren't any other ones either

Wrong. Consider a head tax.

so this is not unique to LVT- unless the tax is on the competition which gives one producer an advantage over another which is another way of saying that if one person is taxed and one isn't the one not taxed has an advantage over the taxed one and can price them out of business).

You don't understand the effect of fixed supply.

And then you end with completely contradicting statements. More people will own land. Fewer people will own land.

Wrong. More people will own land BECAUSE people will not WANT to own it so much. That will make it affordable for people who can't afford it now.

And you have not explained how higher taxes leads to higher productivity and lower prices (the whole gist of this argument here).

Not "higher taxes" but "better taxes." LVT stimulates higher productivity and lower prices because the landowner has to make the rent or lose money to the tax.

You should try to take an introduction to Economics course. It may help you if you are serious about learing this topic.

ROTFL!! Many of the greatest economists have advocated LVT, and I have been schooling economics PhDs on the subject for years. I have read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation, and understand them far better than all but a handful of trained economists.

 

[Roy L]

1. How do you stop the LVT assessors, who must hold a monopoly of assessment and collection,

Didn't take you long to tell a stupid lie, now, did it? The assessments would be done by computer using market transaction data. Collection is totally separate and just a matter of sending out assessments, depositing checks, and reminding delinquent landowners of their obligations.

from raising the assessments for their own selfish political interests?

How do you stop them from kidnapping all the 12-year-old blonde girls and selling them as sex slaves in Pakistan?

All the assessments would be public, so anyone could check their accuracy. And as soon as anyone tried to raise the assessments over the rent, land would be abandoned, reducing total revenue.

2. Governemnts are by thier nature unable to calculate and budget properly.

Didn't take you long to tell another stupid lie, now, did it?

They constantly waste tax revenue thanks to the "socialist calculation problem".

Utter nonsense. Austrian-school ninnies think they can just chant "socialist calculation problem" and everyone else has to genuflect and agree with anything they say.

Whats to stop them from continually raising the LVT and adding misc. additions like environmental fees on top of the LVT when the government is blowing out deficits?

It's a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction. Raise the price too high, and you lose revenue.

3. Where is the great check and balance that would prevent your LVT funded government from expropriating all incomes and wealth from the use of land?

You mean the way landowners currently do...?

If you try to charge too much LVT for land, people will just use less of it, reducing total revenue.

4. What is the fail safe to stop the inevitable mountains of regulations, fees and taxes under other names from being levied by the LVT assessors?

People being smarter than infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" whiners.

5. What is to stop certain LVT payers from lobbing the LVT funded monopolists to spend money to improve their property at the expense of other LVT payers? In exchange for votes of course...

The absence of any profit therefrom: i.e., the exact opposite of what happens under our current non-LVT system, where such corruption is routine.

GET IT???

The problem you claim LVT will cause is exactly the problem with the current system, which LVT will solve.

Monopoly is something which brings down your whole system.

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you. Land is a canonical example of monopoly, and the market rent is not affected by the number of landowners.

Which is the very problem of the current system.

The problem with the current system is the exorbitant, growing, and unsustainable welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners at the expense of the productive.