The Benefits of Land Value Taxation

[Sola_Fide]

not again...

 

[mczerone]

OK I view Land Value taxes as superior to current taxes if you have a government.

But you justified LVT as being "the price to exclude."

Here you're claiming that LVT is a preferred method to fund govt. What does this govt do aside from manage the land? Certainly a LVT-funded govt couldn't be the sole source for the current US govt. And is your LVT progressive, or do people pay a flat % proportionate to the amount of land they own? This is just another tax scheme that leads into a plethora of variables that must be fine-tuned by the central authority, and will lead to numerous loopholes for "tax exempt" land owners and landlords and mortgage lenders, etc.

If you don't have a government then active use requirement for land is necessary that is my main point.

"Active use" is a subjective term, and without a govt mandating certain standards, you'd probably find it impossible to enforce your preferred standard. That's not to say it wouldn't happen - but the common law (w/o state enforcement) already had solutions for adverse possession and abandonment that probably don't come close to your "active use" ideal.


One last question: Does the govt need to pay it's left hand from it's right hand for all the land that it owns? Wouldn't it need to do this as a bookkeeping measure to ensure that it's own lands are being "actively used", and all LVT funds were accounted for?

 

[pathtofreedom]

But you justified LVT as being "the price to exclude."

Here you're claiming that LVT is a preferred method to fund govt. What does this govt do aside from manage the land? Certainly a LVT-funded govt couldn't be the sole source for the current US govt. And is your LVT progressive, or do people pay a flat % proportionate to the amount of land they own? This is just another tax scheme that leads into a plethora of variables that must be fine-tuned by the central authority, and will lead to numerous loopholes for "tax exempt" land owners and landlords and mortgage lenders, etc
I favor significant budget cuts in key areas. So no I don't favor funding the current government. There are simple ways of cutting expenditures. It is a land value tax so it it paid on the value of land so if your land is more valuable then you would pay a higher tax I would favor a flat percentage. I don't favor loop holes or deductions I view none should exist as they lead to mal-investment.


"Active use" is a subjective term, and without a govt mandating certain standards, you'd probably find it impossible to enforce your preferred standard. That's not to say it wouldn't happen - but the common law (w/o state enforcement) already had solutions for adverse possession and abandonment that probably don't come close to your "active use" ideal.
That is why rent or a land value tax is the best way of carrying out an active use requirement because use is difficult to tell. Rent doesn't necessitate the state.

One last question: Does the govt need to pay it's left hand from it's right hand for all the land that it owns? Wouldn't it need to do this as a bookkeeping measure to ensure that it's own lands are being "actively used", and all LVT funds were accounted for?

That is more or less a technical argument how would x,y or z, work under government. Making anything work in government requires transparency and accountability.

 

[Dr.3D]

not again...

Yeah, reminds me of these guys....

 

[Danan]

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.

I also exclude others from all my non-land property, like my body. Should I have to pay a body tax so that I have the privilege not to be murdered and raped?

 

[Danan]

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.

No it's not.

 

[Danan]

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.

There already is an active use requirement, it's called opportunity costs. "Use" is also an undefined term and to believe that only land that is currently generating money profits is "being used" is a ridiculous assertion that nobody with any economic understanding whatsoever should be making.

If I own land and I let it become a primeval forest that means that it is more useful for me than employing the land otherwise, like drilling for oil, cutting the trees, building houses on it. There is no other way to decide what purpose is the most "useful" but through the actions of the property owner.

By making that choice impossible or more expansive that means - by definition - the destruction of utility.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah, reminds me of these guys....

Haha...I love when Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door. I mentally exhaust them. I show them their canned answers can't explain what's in the text of Scripture. It's only happened a few times, I wish they came more.

 

[Dr.3D]

Haha...I love when Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door. I mentally exhaust them. I show them their canned answers can't explain what's in the text of Scripture. It's only happened a few times, I wish they came more.

Well, by that cartoon, it looks like they are still looking for him. If that lady had not hidden him behind the curtain they might have found him.

 

[Debbie Downer]

Soooo....you going to answer this?

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.

 

[mczerone]

That is more or less a technical argument how would x,y or z, work under government. Making anything work in government requires transparency and accountability.

And white horses would be Unicorns if they had a horn...

I favor significant budget cuts in key areas. So no I don't favor funding the current government. There are simple ways of cutting expenditures.

But you're advancing this LVT as a substitute for current taxation schemes. Either it works to fund the current govt (or something that is politically achievable) or it's inventing problems that the ideal world would have already solved.

It is a land value tax so it it paid on the value of land so if your land is more valuable then you would pay a higher tax I would favor a flat percentage. I don't favor loop holes or deductions I view none should exist as they lead to mal-investment.

Paid to whom? ALL taxes lead to malinvestment - money is filtered through a central bureaucracy instead of being spent on what consumers (and land owners) demand.

That is why rent or a land value tax is the best way of carrying out an active use requirement because use is difficult to tell. Rent doesn't necessitate the state.

Paid to whom?

 

[Professor8000]

This guy thinks property is a privilege... My rifles and lead projectiles would argue otherwise. A very long list of people going back hundreds of years, would say that property is a sacred right, that a man's property is an extension of himself, and as such is inalienable. About 237 years ago, many people decided to take up arms against the most powerful Empire in the world to defend their property. They decided that their very life was less important than the idea that no man, or group of men, could take their property without due process. They shot, and killed people that believed that their property was a "privilege" bestowed on them by a single man. Such was their conviction that they waged a war against their countrymen, all over the idea that if property is a privilege, man is but a slave.

There are no people who grant me 'exclusion' to my property. I alone insure my exclusivity. Should anyone violate my exclusivity, I will endeavor to schedule a meeting for them with their maker, post haste.

To make a long story short... Fuck off with that privilege bullshit.

 

[Crystallas]

Must be a renter or lives with mommy.

 

[oyarde]

Nonsense by using force to exclude people from natural resources that humanity inherited you are yourself being immoral.

That is some sick shit. Humanity inherits nothing , besides inher. flaw of being stupid. What I produce on my land through my work belongs to me,everyone else, just a thief, therefore immoral as even a child knows it is wrong to steal..... they are later taught by others it is good.There lies the major problem with this world. Here is what I use; 2 Thessalonians 3 :10. Good enough for me .

 

[oyarde]

Must be a renter or lives with mommy.

I hope not . I would wish better for her.

 

[oyarde]

Yeah, reminds me of these guys....

Meh , I like those guys better, but , I will trade you two of them for three of your Rock Barred hens.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Meh , I like those guys better, but , I will trade you two of them for three of your Rock Barred hens.

I was out doing some sales calls today and I almost ran over a big rooster who was slowly crossing the street.

 

[pathtofreedom]

And white horses would be Unicorns if they had a horn...
Now you are just being silly one could make the same argument about any form of human organization o for that matter against anarchy you are simply using the same arguments that statists use. IT is a non-sequitur argument.


But you're advancing this LVT as a substitute for current taxation schemes. Either it works to fund the current govt (or something that is politically achievable) or it's inventing problems that the ideal world would have already solved.
Current taxation schemes doesn't necessarily current government nor does it have to be federal land taxes could replace state taxes. Parts of the government could easily be cut the USDA, NSA, TSA, DOE and so on. Simply reducing the sheer number of agencies would save enormous amounts of money. Politically achievable because no government and no taxation is politically achievable great logic you got going there. You sir are the one inventing problems.


Paid to whom? ALL taxes lead to malinvestment - money is filtered through a central bureaucracy instead of being spent on what consumers (and land owners) demand.



Paid to whom?

To the community. Ayn Rand's Galt's Gulch was funded by land fees. Land taxes or rents prevent malinvestment by stopping land speculation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

To the community. Ayn Rand's Galt's Gulch was funded by land fees. Land taxes or rents prevent malinvestment by stopping land speculation.

"The Community" is an abstraction. You can't give anything to it.

 

[pathtofreedom]

"The Community" is an abstraction. You can't give anything to it.

I gave an example of a community even if it wasn't real. Like wise "the state" or "the government" is also an abstraction.