The Singapore Model?

[Roy L]

You have not answered my question.

Yes, I have.

You just said others would be at liberty to use. Why would that be true?

What would stop them from using what is already there?

You are no more at liberty to use someone's land as you are liberty to use a car.

No, that's indisputably false. The land was already there, available to use, with no help from any human being. The car was not.

You will now try to contrive some way to avoid knowing that fact.

 

[Roy L]

So we don't discount it, we set the price at whatever is fair,

Only the market can set a fair price, and the market discounts it.

and if the result is nobody can afford it, then the result is nobody owns. What demands future benefits be discounted? Supply of funds?

Risk aversion, current total purchasing power being so much smaller than future total purchasing power, etc.

Why doesn't the building owner get to charge what nature and community provides?

He doesn't own the land, so he has to hand that part over to the landowner.

Doesn't location always matter?

Pretty much.

I think you mean, any land ownership that lets a person walk away with the future benefits at a "one time fee" short of just market value, is unfair.

Right; the idea is that the inherent violation of rights should justly be compensated, in both directions.

Why don't we just counter the subsidy by taxing?

That is the idea of taxing land value.

Or are you saying, whether leasing the land, or selling and taxing, the result is the same?

If the system was designed to fully recover the publicly created land rent either way, then yes, it would be a wash.

Why do they do that if they're not getting something back?

Governments are controlled by landowners.

What's an inherited non-privilege?

Wealth produced by labor, like a car, furniture, a house (but not the land sitting under it), savings, etc.

And what's a privilege that isn't worked for/paid for?

Privileges are typically worked or paid for, of course: they provide an unjust advantage, so of course you can't just get them away from their owners for nothing.

 

[jmdrake]

I think it is somewhat in reference to this:

That....is....insane.

 

[eworthington]

Yes, land taxation is the perfect tax for local government, as land can't hide, and it can't move. However, taxing improvements at a high rate is very counter productive, as it increases their cost and discourages building and even maintenance. Detroit is finding out that excessive taxation of improvements is just as harmful as inadequate taxation of land (as in CA since Prop 13). Land values are so low in Detroit that the great majority of the property tax -- which is substantial -- ends up on improvements, which is a major reason no one wants to build there, or even spruce up existing structures, landscaping, etc.

Roy L, I know what you are talking about with regards to Detroit; the metro is becoming the ultimate doughnut. People just keep building around the city. It's sad, but it is becoming the opposite of some parts of Europe -- where some cities are surrounded by a green belt; Detroit has an increasingly rural center and a suburban/urban border.

Taxing improvements, even when there is a lot of wealth has a big impact. I am originally from New Jersey, and the big thing that drove a lot people out of the state are its high property taxes.

I think, regardless of where you stand on Georgism, taxing property/land is the best way to ensure a more localized form of government.

 

[silverhandorder]

Yes, I have.

What would stop them from using what is already there?

No, that's indisputably false. The land was already there, available to use, with no help from any human being. The car was not.

You will now try to contrive some way to avoid knowing that fact.

Resources in the land were already there before being employed into being a car. So by your definition nothing can be property.

 

[eworthington]

Resources in the land were already there before being employed into being a car. So by your definition nothing can be property.

Silverhandorder, that is not necessarily true. If one were to pay the rental value for the resources, and then sell the car for more than the sum total of the resources, the difference is wealth, and that, is what I believe Georgists determine to be justly acquired property. The car would then be the property of the person that purchased it. The difference is that it is assumed that the raw resources are essentially given to us by nature, and so nobody has the right to stake a claim and charge another rent for them.

 

[silverhandorder]

Silverhandorder, that is not necessarily true. If one were to pay the rental value for the resources, and then sell the car for more than the sum total of the resources, the difference is wealth, and that, is what I believe Georgists determine to be justly acquired property. The car would then be the property of the person that purchased it. The difference is that it is assumed that the raw resources are essentially given to us by nature, and so nobody has the right to stake a claim and charge another rent for them.

Do you agree with that notion? Because that would mean you do not believe in private property.

I for one think one can add value to land so by that they should be granted ownership over the land if they are first person to lay the claim.

 

[eworthington]

Do you agree with that notion? Because that would mean you do not believe in private property.

I for one think one can add value to land so by that they should be granted ownership over the land if they are first person to lay the claim.

Silverhandorder, I, for one, am undecided about George's economic rent theory. I do think, for the sake of obtaining revenue -- if you are not an anarchist -- that a land value tax of some sort is the fairest tax.

I do agree that one can create value from property; i.e., one can plant crops or build an apartment complex; what George, I believe, was saying is that the land value is what should be taxed and not the improvements; therefore, if you take a quarter acre in New York, and let it turn into a crack house, and I take a quarter acre in the same vicinity and turn it into an apartment complex that provides me with great profit, we should be taxed the same percentage of the land's value; neither of us should be taxed on our improvements or lack of.

So, I suppose, the debate really should be, is there a distinction between adding value to land or creating value from land. As I keep saying, I am undecided, and I certainly would like to explore it further.


I never knew Singapore could be so interesting.

 

[Becker]

Only the market can set a fair price, and the market discounts it.

So the fact the market failed to assess a better price makes it a "subsidy"? Wouldn't the market eventually learn to raise the price closer to fair? (oh wait, who would the buyer pay, nobody owns it to begin with)

Risk aversion, current total purchasing power being so much smaller than future total purchasing power, etc.

So what's the problem? It's a risk they take, and may lose.

He doesn't own the land, so he has to hand that part over to the landowner.

I see, you were talking about underground minerals and resources. I was referring to the location advantages such as community development, convenience, climate , all of which are equally enjoyed by the land owner and the building owner (developer)
Pretty much.

Right; the idea is that the inherent violation of rights should justly be compensated, in both directions.

Maybe we have no idea what is just.

That is the idea of taxing land value.

If the system was designed to fully recover the publicly created land rent either way, then yes, it would be a wash.

Governments are controlled by landowners.

Is that just another way of saying property is defined by property owners?

Wealth produced by labor, like a car, furniture, a house (but not the land sitting under it), savings, etc.

How is that not privilege, it's something you have, others don't, and you didn't work for it, and it's an advantage.

Privileges are typically worked or paid for, of course: they provide an unjust advantage, so of course you can't just get them away from their owners for nothing.

I'm afraid we disagree on what is "just".

 

[Becker]

Do you agree with that notion? Because that would mean you do not believe in private property.

I for one think one can add value to land so by that they should be granted ownership over the land if they are first person to lay the claim.

be a little more specific, he doesn't believe in what YOU call or define as private property, he believes in private property, just not the same way. It would be no more fair for a slave owner telling an abolitionist that he doesn't believe in private property.

 

[Roy L]

Resources in the land were already there before being employed into being a car. So by your definition nothing can be property.

No, the moment a resource is removed from its natural location it is self-evidently not "already there." It is then a product of labor and rightly property.

 

[Roy L]

Do you agree with that notion? Because that would mean you do not believe in private property.

No, it would not. You're just talking nonsense with no basis in fact or logic.

I for one think one can add value to land so by that they should be granted ownership over the land if they are first person to lay the claim.

So your principle is, "Grabbers get?" Unfortunately, that has been the model most often applied when land titles were assigned.

The value one adds to land is improvement value, not land value.

 

[Roy L]

be a little more specific, he doesn't believe in what YOU call or define as private property, he believes in private property, just not the same way. It would be no more fair for a slave owner telling an abolitionist that he doesn't believe in private property.

Bingo:

"When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects."
--Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

Careful, Becker: you can obviously think, and if you keep reading this thread you might start thinking about things in a way that leads to understanding. Read the "land value tax" thread, and it will be all over.

 

[Roy L]

So the fact the market failed to assess a better price makes it a "subsidy"?

No, the fact that the landowner gets something for nothing makes it a subsidy.

Wouldn't the market eventually learn to raise the price closer to fair?

It can't, for reasons already explained: the future is unknowable, so there is no way fairly to price a privilege of violating people's rights in perpetuity without making just compensation.

(oh wait, who would the buyer pay, nobody owns it to begin with)

Government administers possession and use of land without rightly owning it, like a trustee administering trust assets without owning them.

So what's the problem? It's a risk they take, and may lose.

The problem is not that the price must be inaccurate, but that it is a price for a privilege to violate people's rights. You could with equal "logic" say that if government auctioned off licenses to steal, the buyers would be taking a risk, and so there is no problem. The problem is precisely that the market prices a license to steal by estimating how much its owner will be able to steal. It's STEALING, no matter how much the license holder pays for the privilege of doing it.

I see, you were talking about underground minerals and resources.

No, I wasn't. I was referring to the economic advantage conferred by the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

I was referring to the location advantages such as community development, convenience, climate , all of which are equally enjoyed by the land owner and the building owner (developer) Pretty much.

No, that's just false. The landowner charges the building owner full market value for all those things, and no one (except a previous landowner) charges the landowner for them. Their value -- the land's value -- is the size of the subsidy he pockets. The building owner, by contrast, can only make money by charging for what HE provides, so he has to provide it efficiently or go broke. The landowner just relies on government, the community and nature to do the providing, and pockets the value of their contributions.

Maybe we have no idea what is just.

We both know very well what is just: rewards commensurate with contributions, and penalties commensurate with deprivations. You just refuse to know that fact, because you have already realized that it proves you are trying to justify injustice, and that your beliefs are false and evil.

Is that just another way of saying property is defined by property owners?

No. It's another way of saying landowners know how they get unearned wealth even if you refuse to know.

How is that not privilege, it's something you have, others don't, and you didn't work for it, and it's an advantage.

Unlike a privilege, it doesn't legally entitle you to benefit by the uncompensated violation of others' rights. Unlike the landowner, the owner of a car, house, etc. is not depriving anyone of anything they would otherwise have.

I'm afraid we disagree on what is "just".

No, you are just pretending you do not know what is just. But actually, you know that you are trying to justify injustice. That is obvious from the dishonesty of your "arguments."

 

[Becker]

No, the fact that the landowner gets something for nothing makes it a subsidy.

So winning a lottery is a subsidy, and so is inheritence, according to you.

It can't, for reasons already explained: the future is unknowable,

Really? You made it sound like it's always knowable and always unfairly favorable to the buyer.

so there is no way fairly to price a privilege of violating people's rights in perpetuity without making just compensation.

and that's only because the future is unknowable, right?

Government administers possession and use of land without rightly owning it, like a trustee administering trust assets without owning them.

The problem is not that the price must be inaccurate, but that it is a price for a privilege to violate people's rights.

What's the difference? If you know what the price is, then you just need to pay what it is, if you don't know, then it'll never be accurate.

You could with equal "logic" say that if government auctioned off licenses to steal, the buyers would be taking a risk, and so there is no problem.

I think I would.

The problem is precisely that the market prices a license to steal by estimating how much its owner will be able to steal. It's STEALING, no matter how much the license holder pays for the privilege of doing it.

yeah, and i still don't see your point. You are comparing land owning to stealing, if that.

No, I wasn't. I was referring to the economic advantage conferred by the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

So I ask you again, how is the building owner any less able to utilize them then the "land owner" if there is one?

No, that's just false. The landowner charges the building owner full market value for all those things, and no one (except a previous landowner) charges the landowner for them.

Whether charged for or not, they are both allowed to use them.

Their value -- the land's value -- is the size of the subsidy he pockets. The building owner, by contrast, can only make money by charging for what HE provides, so he has to provide it efficiently or go broke.

What the building owner paid for, is something he can transfer and "provide" to a new party, even if its not created or added by him.

The landowner just relies on government, the community and nature to do the providing, and pockets the value of their contributions.

At a price he paid, your fault for not raising it.

We both know very well what is just: rewards commensurate with contributions

We disagree what makes one thing just.

, and penalties commensurate with deprivations. You just refuse to know that fact, because you have already realized that it proves you are trying to justify injustice, and that your beliefs are false and evil.

ANd I can't say the same for you, right?

No. It's another way of saying landowners know how they get unearned wealth even if you refuse to know.

Unlike a privilege, it doesn't legally entitle you to benefit by the uncompensated violation of others' rights. Unlike the landowner, the owner of a car, house, etc. is not depriving anyone of anything they would otherwise have.

Yes it is, owning a car is violating your right to own my car.

No, you are just pretending you do not know what is just. But actually, you know that you are trying to justify injustice. That is obvious from the dishonesty of your "arguments."

Oh yes, I'm in denial and dishonest, unlike you. I'm not the one accused of "not believing in private property", and I even tried to defend you. You'll have the rest of this forum telling you that you're "justifying injustice" by allowing land to be unowned and allowing government to confiscate land in the name of "public good" or "social justice", while calling a person's gamble and investment a "subsidy".

 

[Becker]

No, it would not. You're just talking nonsense with no basis in fact or logic.

So your principle is, "Grabbers get?" Unfortunately, that has been the model most often applied when land titles were assigned.

The value one adds to land is improvement value, not land value.

yes, the currently accepted ownership theory is "grabbers get" which is what homestead is.
how is land value and improvement value not a semantic distinction?

 

[Roy L]

So winning a lottery is a subsidy, and so is inheritence, according to you.

No, because unlike land value, those benefits are not taken from others by government and given to their recipients in return for contributing nothing.

Really? You made it sound like it's always knowable and always unfairly favorable to the buyer.

It is not knowable in advance, but has shown a fairly consistent pattern through history. And it is always unfairly favorable to the buyer because he is getting a legal entitlement to violate others' rights in perpetuity without making just compensation.

and that's only because the future is unknowable, right?

No, it's also because the future is too much bigger than the present.

What's the difference?

Deliberate violation of others' rights without making just compensation is evil.

If you know what the price is, then you just need to pay what it is, if you don't know, then it'll never be accurate.

There is no way to pay an accurate price, so the market discounts the price to a level that is payable. There is not enough money in the world to pay a fair price for all future generations' rights, and most of the existing money is already earmarked for other purposes.

I think I would.

Thank you for agreeing that landowning is morally equivalent to stealing.

yeah, and i still don't see your point. You are comparing land owning to stealing, if that.

Yes, and you just agreed they are equivalent.

So I ask you again, how is the building owner any less able to utilize them then the "land owner" if there is one?

The building owner certainly utilizes them: that is why he chose to build there, and not in the middle of the desert. He just doesn't get the benefit of them, because he has to pay the landowner full market price for them.

Whether charged for or not, they are both allowed to use them.

?? But the building owner PAYS THE LANDOWNER for them. The landowner DOESN'T pay government and the community for them. He just paid the previous landowner. The building owner only "charges" for those advantages in the same sense that a retailer "charges" sales tax: he collects it, but doesn't get the benefit from it.

What the building owner paid for, is something he can transfer and "provide" to a new party, even if its not created or added by him.

So? It was created or added by SOMEONE, who was presumably paid for doing so. If B pays A to create something, B has effectively created it: he has initiated and motivated the process. If C then pays B for it, C is also indirectly paying A, and B's contribution has been taken over by C: it is now effectively C who has paid A to create it.

At a price he paid, your fault for not raising it.

No, such claims are just absurd and evil. If the government auctioned off a privilege of charging people rent for air to breathe, and the top bid was $10T, is that a fair price for being able to extort every dime from everyone in the country? Is the profitability of this air-rent extortion racket "my fault" for not bidding more than $10T and getting the privilege myself?

We disagree what makes one thing just.

I'm certain that you know stealing is unjust.

ANd I can't say the same for you, right?

Correct.

Yes it is, owning a car is violating your right to own my car.

How would I have a right to own your car? A right -- we are speaking here of natural rights, not legal rights -- is something people would have if others did not deprive them of it: like life, liberty, and enjoyment of the fruits of their labor. As your car is not a product of my labor, how could I possibly have a right to it?

Oh yes, I'm in denial and dishonest, unlike you. I'm not the one accused of "not believing in private property", and I even tried to defend you.

That accusation said more about the accuser than the accused.

You'll have the rest of this forum telling you that you're "justifying injustice" by allowing land to be unowned

Land self-evidently and indisputably all started out unowned. Nothing to do with me. You need to explain how it came rightly to be owned. And you can't. People much smarter than you have tried to explain it for hundreds of years, and they have never been able to do it.

and allowing government to confiscate land in the name of "public good" or "social justice", while calling a person's gamble and investment a "subsidy".

Thieves also gamble and invest in their schemes. But unlike landowners, they just don't have government helping them. The government's assistance to the landowner is what makes land value a subsidy.

 

[Roy L]

yes, the currently accepted ownership theory is "grabbers get" which is what homestead is.

And it is self-evidently unjust. Homestead is just stealing from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. It has no more moral basis than slavery did when it was the currently accepted ownership theory.

how is land value and improvement value not a semantic distinction?

One is contributed by the owner, the other isn't. Duh.

 

[Fox McCloud]

And it is self-evidently unjust. Homestead is just stealing from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. It has no more moral basis than slavery did when it was the currently accepted ownership theory.

And this, gentleman, is all you need to hear to know you shouldn't give Roy the time of day--don't waste you time with a labor theory of value advocate.

 

[Roy L]

And this, gentleman, is all you need to hear to know you shouldn't give Roy the time of day--don't waste you time with a labor theory of value advocate.

As I have not advanced a labor theory of value, and won't be doing so, better advice would be: don't waste your attention on economic ignorami who can't tell the difference between a labor theory of value and a consistency criterion of property rights.