The Benefits of Land Value Taxation

[pathtofreedom]

That sounds great.

But a land value tax doesn't pay them. It pays the very state that subjugates them.

If the issue is that the government is evil and shouldn't exist and argue in favor of no taxes fine. Active use property requirements is the main purpose there are other ways of achieving active use property requirements without taxation you could still get the benefits of it without taxes.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Another thing-you LVT folks would be wise to focus your attention/efforts on IP instead. That's far more heinous (as in many magnitudes!) and obvious rent-seeking behavior than land ownership.

 

[newbitech]

I am simply arguing if that you want to exclude that should pay those around you who give you that privilege. I see the privilege as necessary to carry out economic functions. As for eminent domain it is not necessary with advanced tunneling technology being suppressed by the government since eminent domain is mostly an issue of acquiring land for transportation functions.

Where did they get this so called "privilege" if I must pay them for it? Did they pay me for the "privilege" that I must have also "given" to them since I am also around them? What exactly are you calling privilege here?

Eminent domain is used for much more than transportation functions. In fact, someone just posted a link to an article where New York wants to use eminent domain to buy underwater mortgages.

I think you need to work on establishing a basis. For instance, I believe that property is a right, not a privilege. I believe that the function of any government is to protect that right.

For instance, if I wonder off into the wilderness and find myself living on an acre of unowned, unoccupied, undeveloped land and I build a fence and begin to cultivate that land, then that land belongs to me. I claim the right to that land, and anyone who approaches my land will find it owned, occupied, and developed and thus have no similar claim. I may then petition whatever local government to recognize my right to that land based on my "payment" of labor to the land itself. If that government decided to not recognize my right then by default that government is opposed to that right and any aggressive towards my or my land will be met with justified resistance and self-defense.

In other words, the government and anyone else who wants to separate me from that land may very well be successful in doing so, but will be in the wrong and acting immorally.

Regardless if that land has the only cure for cancer on it or is a mud hole.

 

[erowe1]

If the issue is that the government is evil and shouldn't exist and argue in favor of no taxes fine.

OK? Is that not the issue?

I'm still not clear on your position. Do you think the LVT is positively better than no tax at all? If so, then I don't think I misrepresented you earlier. If not, then I may well agree with you.

Just as some background on this, we've had other people here who argued vociferously that the LVT was a positively good thing. And they used pretty similar rhetoric to what you're using, especially the bit about how somehow giving money to the state equates to giving it to all the rest of society.

 

[Debbie Downer]

You pay for the privilege of exclusion. I view property as a necessary evil. You pay for this privilege.

You already paid for the right to exclude others when you purchased the land in the first place.

 

[erowe1]

You already paid for the right to exclude others when you purchased the land in the first place.

Where did the people you purchased it from get that right, so they could sell it to you?

 

[pathtofreedom]

OK? Is that not the issue?

I'm still not clear on your position. Do you think the LVT is positively better than no tax at all? If so, then I don't think I misrepresented you earlier. If not, then I may well agree with you.

Just as some background on this, we've had other people here who argued vociferously that the LVT was a positively good thing. And they used pretty similar rhetoric to what you're using, especially the bit about how somehow giving money to the state equates to giving it to all the rest of society.

I think an LVT is better than current taxation and a way of upholding active use property requirements and ending land speculation. Really I favor active use property if a LVT does that then fine if it can be done without it that is also fine. I don't equate the state to society no one an can possibly do that and that is an old excuse used by statists justify their love of government.

 

[erowe1]

I don't equate the state to society

Is that not what you're doing when you say:

I am simply arguing if that you want to exclude that should pay those around you who give you that privilege.

?

 

[pathtofreedom]

Is that not what you're doing when you say:
?

I was arguing that you should pay for the privilege of land ownership because that is what it is a privilege. I didn't even use government or the big bad state in that sentence.

 

[Debbie Downer]

I was arguing that you should pay for the privilege of land ownership because that is what it is a privilege. I didn't even use government or the big bad state in that sentence.

So once you purchase land from another individual, you should pay the state in perpetuity for the privilege to continue owning that land?

 

[pathtofreedom]

So once you purchase land from another individual, you should pay the state in perpetuity for the privilege to continue owning that land?

Or you have to actively use it the tax is simply a means by by carrying that out. The point is to prevent land speculation and too much accumulation.

 

[Debbie Downer]

Or you have to actively use it the tax is simply a means by by carrying that out. The point is to prevent land speculation and too much accumulation.

Why do you want government involved in the economy preventing speculation and why do you have the right to prevent someone from accumulating land?

 

[pathtofreedom]

Why do you want government involved in the economy preventing speculation and why do you have the right to prevent someone from accumulating land?

Because small numbers of people owning large numbers of land is a problem and land speculation is economically destructive and one of the causes of the business cycle.

 

[Debbie Downer]

Because small numbers of people owning large numbers of land is a problem and land speculation is economically destructive and one of the cause of the business cycle.

What right do you have to limit how much land someone can own?

And government intervention in the economy is the problem, not the business cycle. Without government intervention the market corrects itself.

 

[pathtofreedom]

What right do you have to limit how much land someone can own?
No one is putting a limit on the amount only requiring that it be put to use.
And government intervention in the economy is the problem, not the business cycle. Without government intervention the market corrects itself.

Nope the business cycle is destructive and will eventually destroy us and the planet. As for correction you don't need any to begin with. The business cycle is not sustainable.

 

[erowe1]

I was arguing that you should pay for the privilege of land ownership because that is what it is a privilege. I didn't even use government or the big bad state in that sentence.

But the first words of that sentence indicated that it was going to say what it is you're arguing. And the thread title is "The Benefits of Land Value Taxation."

Doesn't "taxation" mean it's paid to the state?

 

[mczerone]

Because small numbers of people owning large numbers of land is a problem

(1) How is this a problem?

(2) What is your solution, except to give one agency de facto ownership of all the land, to dole out by a method that they choose without market feedback?

and land speculation is economically destructive

(1) Another unbacked assertion.

(2) Your "active use property requirements" might be more economically destructive because they would be determined by a central authority based on political whims, rather than market forces driving the land to it's most beneficial use for society - which might be to let the land sit largely 'untouched'.

and one of the causes of the business cycle.

Speculation does not cause business cycles. Speculation cycles are spurred as a symptom of business cycles.

 

[pathtofreedom]

But the first words of that sentence indicated that it was going to say what it is you're arguing. And the thread title is "The Benefits of Land Value Taxation."

Doesn't "taxation" mean it's paid to the state?

OK I view Land Value taxes as superior to current taxes if you have a government. If you don't have a government then active use requirement for land is necessary that is my main point.

 

[Debbie Downer]

No one is putting a limit on the amount only requiring that it be put to use.

Except you said this:

Because small numbers of people owning large numbers of land is a problem and land speculation is economically destructive and one of the causes of the business cycle.

You suggest that people owning too much land is a problem, so obviously you want to limit how much someone can own to fix that "problem."

So...what right do you have to limit how much of land (or anything else) someone can own? What right do you have to tell someone how they have to use the land (or anything else) they own? What right do you have to limit how someone uses their property?

Nope the business cycle is destructive and will eventually destroy us and the planet. As for correction you don't need any to begin with. The business cycle is not sustainable.

The business cycle is inevitable. We will always have speculation and malinvestment. You want government intervention to try and mitigate this, which always fails. The market, when left on its own, corrects itself.

And we won't destroy the planet. We'll destroy ourselves way before we even make a dent in this planet. The planet has seen much worse than humans and survived.

 

[Debbie Downer]

OK I view Land Value taxes as superior to current taxes if you have a government. If you don't have a government then active use requirement for land is necessary that is my main point.

And if you have no government how do you enforce this "active use requirement?" And by what right do you have to tell someone how they must use property they own?