The Benefits of Land Value Taxation

[Henry Rogue]

I am amazed that people get so angry.

What anger? I thought we were just having a few chuckles and reminiscing about past challengers.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I am amazed that people get so angry.

What anger? I thought we were just having a few chuckles and reminiscing about past challengers.

What Henry said. And in that spirit:

I just can't work up any enthusiasm for an LVT thread that doesn't include Steven Douglas.

Steven's assiduously & acerbically merciless dissections of LVT were a delight to behold.

In fact, they were the only things that made all our previous LVT threads worth following in the first place.

 

[matt0611]

What Henry said. And in that spirit:

I just can't work up any enthusiasm for an LVT thread that doesn't include Steven Douglas.

Steven's assiduously & acerbically merciless dissections of LVT were a delight to behold.

In fact, they were the only things that made all our previous LVT threads worth following in the first place.

What ever happened to Steven? Haven't seen him around in the econ forum for a while.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

There you are spinning what I am saying. I never said tell people exactly how much land they should own or what should be done with only that measure should be taken to end land speculation, encouraging usage of land, and that implementing such measures as land rents would serve this purpose. I never put an explicit limit on land ownership or dictate what it is used for. The land rent simply put encourages de-consolidation and usage.

Except by stating that you do not wish for someone to acquire "too much" land, you implicitly state that you know how much is "too much". If you do not know how much is "too much", then you can never really guard against accumulation because you do not know when it is actually occurring.

Using the human error argument, calculation argument or knowledge argument is stupid one could use the very same argument against the market. Questioning whether humans are capable of something can be used against any form of human organization. With decades of experience we can objectively say that fractional reserve banking causes bubbles and land speculation also causes bubbles. Heck Ron Paul supported banning fractional reserve banking. Anyone with common sense can see perpetual growth is not sustainable nor desirable.

So land speculation causes bubbles but you want a government that exists because of and only derives income by assessing land and assuring fairness of use... what could possibly go wrong there....

(Also, why is perpetual growth not sustainable/desirable? Do you wish to put some sort of imposed cap on technology, as well?)

 

[Occam's Banana]

What ever happened to Steven? Haven't seen him around in the econ forum for a while.

I don't know. He hasn't posted since January. Hope he's OK. (Not that he wouldn't be just because he isn't posting at RPFs, but you know what I mean.)

 

[Origanalist]

What Henry said. And in that spirit:

I just can't work up any enthusiasm for an LVT thread that doesn't include Steven Douglas.

Steven's assiduously & acerbically merciless dissections of LVT were a delight to behold.

In fact, they were the only things that made all our previous LVT threads worth following in the first place.

They were rather fun to read weren't they?

 

[shane77m]

Thanks to Obamacare we are now taxed just to be breathing.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What ever happened to Steven? Haven't seen him around in the econ forum for a while.

I hope he didn't fall down the Memory Hole. He was a great contributor.

 

[oyarde]

I hope he didn't fall down the Memory Hole. He was a great contributor.

Yes he is . Now , for reality , there is , has not been , nor will there ever be , any benefit to land taxation.Death to taxes and ill will to those who support them

 

[Crazy Horse]

Any tax is immoral. Stop trying to steal the work of others.

But that is exactly what landowners do with government help unless their government issued privilege, the land title, comes with reciprocation. That's where the land value tax comes in.

 

[oyarde]

But that is exactly what landowners do with government help unless their government issued privilege, the land title, comes with reciprocation. That's where the land value tax comes in.

That sounds insane , there is no priv. except paying someone for nothing .

 

[Crazy Horse]

You are correct that taxing trade taxes (some) human effort. But a tax on land is a tax on human existence.

No, it's only a tax on privilege.

Everyone would be forced to pay a land tax, even a subsistence farmer.

That depends on the land. If it bears no rent there is no tax to pay.

 

[Generalissimo]

But that is exactly what landowners do with government help unless their government issued privilege, the land title, comes with reciprocation. That's where the land value tax comes in.

Land ownership =/= theft.

Nice to see another LVT troll join the forum, though.

 

[erowe1]

But that is exactly what landowners do with government help unless their government issued privilege, the land title, comes with reciprocation. That's where the land value tax comes in.

What makes these people in the government so special that they have a right to act like they own all the land on the planet and issue people titles for it in exchange for money?

 

[Crazy Horse]

My biggest problem with an LVT is that the people getting the money are the state.

True. A few years ago I myself was also completely anti state before I learned about things the Law of Rent and how destructive unbridled private landownership would be. Landowners would just end up becoming their own government over the areas they control, getting more and more rent for doing nothing, just owning land and charging rent for it while others do the work. That's when I realized we do need some sort of institution collecting the rent of land for the benefit of all. It's a necessary evil because the alternative would be far worse.

 

[erowe1]

A few years ago I myself was also completely anti state before I learned about things the Law of Rent and how destructive unbridled private landownership would be. Landowners would just end up becoming their own government over the areas they control, getting more and more rent for doing nothing, just owning land and charging rent for it while others do the work.

I thought you said that it was government issued titles that made people land owners. So how would there be land owners without the state?

 

[Crazy Horse]

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.

That's next in line. But there is no bigger rent-seeking behavior than land ownership.

"No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there." - Winston Churchill

 

[erowe1]

That's next in line. But there is no bigger rent-seeking behavior than land ownership.

"No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there." - Winston Churchill

Land monopolist = the state.

 

[Crazy Horse]

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.

The nice thing of the land value tax is that there is no deadweight loss associated with it unlike with most other taxes.

 

[erowe1]

The nice thing of the land value tax is that there is no deadweight loss associated with it unlike with most other taxes.

Of all the things that taxes pay for, dead weight loss is among the most benign.