The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Nah, remember the Roy L. Pretzel Logic Rule on Subjective vs. Objective? As soon as you quoted his opinion it became objective. Why, I'll even help and second his opinion, that way there's more than one. There, now there are two votes, which makes the two opinions objective.

Stupid and dishonest garbage that -- inevitably -- misstates what I said.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It's good to dream. Go back to sleep Roy.

 

[Roy L]

You really didn't need to attack me, Roy.

I know. Attacking lies and absurdities that rationalize privilege and justify injustice is just a habit with me.

I was simply pointing out weaknesses in your argument.

No, you were fabricating weaknesses that did not exist.

Below is a good explanation of the appeal to authority fallacy:

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[SUP][1][/SUP]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.a says p about S.Therefore, p is correct.

Readers will note that neither Eco nor I proposed any such statistical syllogism -- which in any case isn't even fallacious (learn to read, HB).

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[SUP][2][/SUP]
X holds that A is trueX is a legitimate expert on the subject.The consensus of experts agrees with X.Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.[edit]

Note that the above describes the STRENGTH of legitimate appeals to authority, not the fallacious appeal to authority, which is described as follows:

Fallacious appeals to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[SUP][3][/SUP] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[SUP][2][/SUP] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5]

Readers will note that neither Eco nor I made any such argument (learn to read, HB).

Now you see why I pointed out that you committed this fallacy.

<yawn> I see three possibilities for why you falsely claimed Eco committed this fallacy:

1. You had no idea what it actually consisted in;
2. You did not read or understand his statements accurately;
3. You were lying.

Quoting a source to buttress your argument, however, is not fallacious-and is not what you did.

Actually, it IS what Eco did. He quoted a whole column by Martin Wolf, who is definitely an authority, and contrary to your FALSE CLAIM, that was not an appeal to authority fallacy (which you give every appearance of still not understanding).

"Fair share" is subjective.

I didn't mention "fair share," just, "share," so putting quotes around "fair share" is just you makin' $#!+ up about what I wrote. Again.

My idea of "fair" may be entirely different from yours.

Not really. We both know what's fair: equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor. You just want things that you know very well are UNfair.

"Just compensation" is also subjective.

No, it isn't. The market value of what is taken is just compensation for it.

Your arguments are so full of these vagueries and subjective terms that they are left full of holes in the end.

No, that is merely a false claim by you about the contents of my arguments. I am very clear, and my terms are objectively defined in good dictionaries.

No one will know, even if they agree with you, exactly how to put what you describe into practice because they will have to either keep asking you or make it up as they go along.

Garbage. There is nothing particularly difficult or complex about implementing it. You just have to understand the underlying principles.

I didn't lie about what you said.

See above.

You simply left it up to my interpretation because of the ambiguous, subjective nature of it.

There is nothing ambiguous or subjective about it. That's just you makin' $#!+ up.

I hope you'll continue to refine and clarify your arguments so these discussions will be more productive. We may even find more common ground if you do that.

Yes, well, you wouldn't be the first LVT opponent who tried to exhaust me with a tsunami of fallacious, dishonest garbage.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Attacking lies and absurdities...
...you were fabricating...
...learn to read, HB...
...learn to read, HB...
...you falsely claimed...
...You had no idea...
...You did not read or understand...
...You were lying...
...contrary to your FALSE CLAIM...
...just you makin' $#!+ up...
...You just want things that you know very well are UNfair...
...a false claim by you...
...You just have to understand...
...That's just you makin' $#!+ up...
...a tsunami of fallacious, dishonest garbage.

And this is a soft, furry, cuddly bunny rabbit.

 

[EcoWarrier]

I know nothing of economics, so I better shut up. But from my impressions, I do support the Land Value Tax as a single tax because it allows us to choose our tax while still funding the government. It's a LOT more free than the income tax, in my opinion.

LVT is very simple. Freedom? It does give you that for sure.

An example, if you are say an author and it does not matter where you live to earn your income. As the system is now, if you live in Manhattan or the remoteness of up-state NY, you still pay the same income tax. With LVT you decide how much tax you pay by choosing the location. LVT in Manhattan will be much more than up-state NY as the land values are higher. If you want to live in Manhattan and take advantage of all the vibrancy, entertainment, arts, leisure and other facilities NYC has to offer then you pay more LVT for the location that provides those facilities. In up-state NY you pay less LVT but the facilities are far less, or maybe non-existent.

In both cases you keep 100% of your income - what your effort produced. You have the freedom to decide what you pay for.

 

[EcoWarrier]

It's good to dream. Go back to sleep Roy.

I dream. I dream of building castles on the top of a high hill. However my dreams are based on real castles that exist.

 

[EcoWarrier]

OTC: the elite's vicious, relentless, monomaniacal campaign to stop LVT -- which included introducing income tax and union monopoly privileges to co-opt socialists and organized labor into betraying the Single Tax movement -- strongly suggests that they know very well they can't wriggle out of it, and will therefore do anything whatever -- including destroy the economy and the country -- in order to stop it.

That is hitting the nail right on the head. In 1909 the British empire was the world's largest ever empire and Britain the world's biggest economic superpower. The Liberal government, with Winston Churchill more than active, put LVT in its budget. The resultant upheaval between the House of Commons and the second house, the House of Lords, which was filled with large land owners, was the biggest constitutional conflict in the British Parliament in the modern era.

The second house rejected a financial bill primarily because it contained LVT. "The Lords accepted the Budget on 29 April 1910 — a year to the day after its introduction — when the land tax proposal was dropped". It ended in the House of Lords having its power reduced in the Parliament Act of 1911. The act effectively removed the right of the House of Lords to veto money bills completely. But they got their way in suppressing the Land Tax. By the time the government could reintroduce LVT war clouds were gathering and WW1 came along.

People's Budget

the elite's vicious, relentless, monomaniacal campaign to stop LVT is constant. These days it may come from even corporations as well as the parasitic landed people. MacDonalds are a land company. Land is their prime assets.

Then you see why the top 1% of the USA population own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Which proves the current economic systems used in the western world do not work.

 

[redbluepill]

I find the only real resistance to the LVT is from Mises/anarchocapitalist-types who refuse to acknowledge any form of taxation (or in this case rent). When talking to 98% of people they open up to the idea of the LVT especially when it eliminates or at least reduces other taxes. What Republican shouldn't embrace the LVT (unless they are absentee landowners who do nothing productive with the land)? What Democrat wouldn't like the idea of a tax that is truly fair and ensures the elites cant hide through tax loopholes? The real challenge is getting the word out. Fortunately, thanks in part to the internet and a terrible economy, the idea is gaining support again.

 

[Roy L]

I find the only real resistance to the LVT is from Mises/anarchocapitalist-types who refuse to acknowledge any form of taxation (or in this case rent).

I.e., "libertarians" whose actual goal is feudalism. Some even openly admire and praise the feudal Dark Ages of Western Europe.

When talking to 98% of people they open up to the idea of the LVT especially when it eliminates or at least reduces other taxes.

Do you have any numbers to back this up? IME it is an exaggeration. A great many homeowners are absolutely terrified of losing much of the value of their principal asset, which they may have gone deep into debt to acquire (this is another reason to include both a UIE and a "purchase value exemption" in any LVT proposal). They are completely unable to understand that this loss is illusory because unlike LVT, their future tax liabilities under the current system are not reflected in the value of any asset. If there was an asset called, "my future life," that contained the market value of all one's future economic activity net of taxes, as land value contains the market value of all the future welfare subsidy giveaways to the landowner net of taxes, it would be obvious that the gain in their future lives' value under LVT would in most cases far exceed the loss of their land's value.

What Republican shouldn't embrace the LVT (unless they are absentee landowners who do nothing productive with the land)?

Pretty much all of them: the Republicans are the party of privilege, property, and the power they confer on their owners. Litmus test: a Republican who supports the War on Drugs is nothing but a fascist.

What Democrat wouldn't like the idea of a tax that is truly fair and ensures the elites cant hide through tax loopholes?

All the Democrats -- like Obama -- who have been bought and paid for by the privileged elite, or who rely on countervailing privileges for their livelihoods (e.g., unions, especially their executives).

The real challenge is getting the word out. Fortunately, thanks in part to the internet and a terrible economy, the idea is gaining support again.

True. So it won't be long till the privileged are paying liars for hire to slag, dismiss, deride and lie about LVT on Internet forums -- if they aren't already.

 

[Travlyr]

I find the only real resistance to the LVT is from Mises/anarchocapitalist-types who refuse to acknowledge any form of taxation (or in this case rent). When talking to 98% of people they open up to the idea of the LVT especially when it eliminates or at least reduces other taxes. What Republican shouldn't embrace the LVT (unless they are absentee landowners who do nothing productive with the land)? What Democrat wouldn't like the idea of a tax that is truly fair and ensures the elites cant hide through tax loopholes? The real challenge is getting the word out. Fortunately, thanks in part to the internet and a terrible economy, the idea is gaining support again.

I resist LVT because as I get older I may not be able to earn enough to pay my taxes and will get kicked off my land and home before I die.

 

[EcoWarrier]

True. So it won't be long till the privileged are paying liars for hire to slag, dismiss, deride and lie about LVT on Internet forums -- if they aren't already.

The oil companies clearly do that.

 

[EcoWarrier]

I resist LVT because as I get older I may not be able to earn enough to pay my taxes and will get kicked off my land and home before I die.

Winston Churchill called that the "Poor Widow bogey". That has been dunbunked for over 100 years. The poor widow livinga very large house on valuabel land.

Allusion is typically made to the "poor widow"

1. Who, on a fixed income of a pension and/or social security is compelled
to sell her home in which she lived for years and where she hoped to spend
her remaining days.

2. Although pundits and politicians are often hard put to provide an
instance in which this has happened, it makes for excellent copy, for what
greater case of heartlessness can be offered for relief of property taxes!

Priceless logic. The more that people want something, the less they should have to pay for it? Isn't one of the basic rules of free markets that people are prepared to pay more for things which are of value to them; and isn't there a behavioural rule that people value things more if they have to pay for them?

A childless Poor Widow could be exempted anyway (her estate reverts to the state) and if she has, er, family, couldn't they step up the oche? Or is the idea that 'everybody else' chips in a bit more tax to keep these "families" in the style to which they have become accustomed?

What happens now? If you can't afford to live somwhere you move to somwhere you can afford. LVT has exemptions for various reasons. Under LVT, an old widow in a massive valuable house can defer payment until death or sale of property.

As regards the poor widow neighbour. It certainly is her fault if she has "little cash", it's called "not saving up while you are working". And if she wanted, she could be sitting on a huge great pile of cash locked up in the land under her feet, so this sort of poverty is entirely self-inflicted.

What LVT would do is encourage Poor Widows in large houses to do the economically rational thing and down size a bit to somewhere costing "only" far less, freeing up huge great piles of cash for them to really enjoy their last few years.

And, if we are that worried presumably we could have an old lady exemption that might be slowly phased out? The older generation cannot go on holding the younger generation hostage and demanding that the younger generation pay for them because it was not cool to save in the 60s!

Why shouldn't the Poor Widow, who has struck property gold and won the lottery of life and who can bank her winnings any time and still afford somewhere nice with enough money left over to pay the tax for the rest of her life, pay more than a genuinely Poor Widow (whose husband was a coal
miner and died of lung disease twenty years ago etc) who still lives in a small house that's barely beaten inflation since the 1940s? You can save a lot of money by trading down from a swanky home into a suitable place.

A more sophisticated Poll Tax would be:

a) set in proportion to benefits received by owner/occupier(s) of any
particular house

b) be able to raise huge amounts of revenue to replace lots of other taxes
and pay for a Citizen's Income (which acts like a personal allowance against
your tax bill)

The good news is, LVT retains the two big advantages above of Poll Tax - it's not directly related to incomes (any more than the value of your car is related to your income) and it's nice and simple to assess and collect.

 

[Travlyr]

Winston Churchill called that the "Poor Widow bogey". That has been dunbunked for over 100 years. The poor widow livinga very large house on valuabel land.

Allusion is typically made to the "poor widow"

1. Who, on a fixed income of a pension and/or social security is compelled
to sell her home in which she lived for years and where she hoped to spend
her remaining days.

2. Although pundits and politicians are often hard put to provide an
instance in which this has happened, it makes for excellent copy, for what
greater case of heartlessness can be offered for relief of property taxes!

Priceless logic. The more that people want something, the less they should have to pay for it? Isn't one of the basic rules of free markets that people are prepared to pay more for things which are of value to them; and isn't there a behavioural rule that people value things more if they have to pay for them?

A childless Poor Widow could be exempted anyway (her estate reverts to the state) and if she has, er, family, couldn't they step up the oche? Or is the idea that 'everybody else' chips in a bit more tax to keep these "families" in the style to which they have become accustomed?

What happens now? If you can't afford to live somwhere you move to somwhere you can afford. LVT has exemptions for various reasons. Under LVT, an old widow in a massive valuable house can defer payment until death or sale of property.

As regards the poor widow neighbour. It certainly is her fault if she has "little cash", it's called "not saving up while you are working". And if she wanted, she could be sitting on a huge great pile of cash locked up in the land under her feet, so this sort of poverty is entirely self-inflicted.

What LVT would do is encourage Poor Widows in large houses to do the economically rational thing and down size a bit to somewhere costing "only" far less, freeing up huge great piles of cash for them to really enjoy their last few years.

And, if we are that worried presumably we could have an old lady exemption that might be slowly phased out? The older generation cannot go on holding the younger generation hostage and demanding that the younger generation pay for them because it was not cool to save in the 60s!

Why shouldn't the Poor Widow, who has struck property gold and won the lottery of life and who can bank her winnings any time and still afford somewhere nice with enough money left over to pay the tax for the rest of her life, pay more than a genuinely Poor Widow (whose husband was a coal
miner and died of lung disease twenty years ago etc) who still lives in a small house that's barely beaten inflation since the 1940s? You can save a lot of money by trading down from a swanky home into a suitable place.

A more sophisticated Poll Tax would be:

a) set in proportion to benefits received by owner/occupier(s) of any
particular house

b) be able to raise huge amounts of revenue to replace lots of other taxes
and pay for a Citizen's Income (which acts like a personal allowance against
your tax bill)

The good news is, LVT retains the two big advantages above of Poll Tax - it's not directly related to incomes (any more than the value of your car is related to your income) and it's nice and simple to assess and collect.

This is not freedom. This is the State taxing an owner out of their possessions. I'm a sound money allodial title to land and all other property too, guy. The State should be able to function on fees for service. To hell with taxing land. Once one buys property, it should be theirs to do whatever the owner sees fit.

 

[redbluepill]

Do you have any numbers to back this up? IME it is an exaggeration. A great many homeowners are absolutely terrified of losing much of the value of their principal asset, which they may have gone deep into debt to acquire (this is another reason to include both a UIE and a "purchase value exemption" in any LVT proposal). They are completely unable to understand that this loss is illusory because unlike LVT, their future tax liabilities under the current system are not reflected in the value of any asset. If there was an asset called, "my future life," that contained the market value of all one's future economic activity net of taxes, as land value contains the market value of all the future welfare subsidy giveaways to the landowner net of taxes, it would be obvious that the gain in their future lives' value under LVT would in most cases far exceed the loss of their land's value.

I'm talking about the people I have spoken to about the LVT. Many resisted the idea at first, or at least had concerns. But when you talk about the advantages they warm up to it.

Pretty much all of them: the Republicans are the party of privilege, property, and the power they confer on their owners. Litmus test: a Republican who supports the War on Drugs is nothing but a fascist.

All the Democrats -- like Obama -- who have been bought and paid for by the privileged elite, or who rely on countervailing privileges for their livelihoods (e.g., unions, especially their executives).

It seems you're talking about the average politician/elitist. I'm talking about the average voter.

I'm sure you've heard of the Democratic Freedom Caucus
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

True. So it won't be long till the privileged are paying liars for hire to slag, dismiss, deride and lie about LVT on Internet forums -- if they aren't already.

They certainly accomplished oppressing the idea for over a century. The internet has made that job more difficult. Decentralizing government would make it even more difficult imo.

 

[redbluepill]

I resist LVT because as I get older I may not be able to earn enough to pay my taxes and will get kicked off my land and home before I die.

The tax burden with the Single Tax wouldn't even compare to what we have now. Unless you're Ted Turner.

 

[redbluepill]

This is not freedom.

What you grow, create, catch, raise, make, etc clearly belongs to you. Georgists agree with every other libertarian on that. But the land does not apply. You did not make the land. You only acquired it by buying it from someone else who, by force, kept others off of it.

This is the State taxing an owner out of their possessions.

A possession that was never theirs to begin with.

Keep in mind, I do not oppose private possession of land. Private possession is necessary to reap the rewards of labor. But we also have to balance that with the equal rights of all to access what nature has provided. Why do you think poverty was always worse in the South, or in many of the developing countries like Central/South America, Africa, etc? The best land was gobbled up by a select few. Corporations and landlords were granted many acres, cutting indigenous people off from access to the land they worked on for centuries.

I'm a sound money allodial title to land and all other property too, guy. The State should be able to function on fees for service. To hell with taxing land. Once one buys property, it should be theirs to do whatever the owner sees fit.

Tell me. How much work is required to declare the land as yours? How much of it can you say is yours? This has never been explained by your side in over 87 pages of this thread.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm talking about the people I have spoken to about the LVT. Many resisted the idea at first, or at least had concerns. But when you talk about the advantages they warm up to it.

Most people who really research it already like it better than the prevailing system (Rothbard certainly did). The problem is, as I mentioned earlier, that it's remarkably naive to trust the government with this sort of thing-especially the American government. The tax revenues would have to be administered by a truly accountable and reliable entity.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What you grow, create, catch, raise, make, etc clearly belongs to you. Georgists agree with every other libertarian on that. But the land does not apply. You did not make the land. You only acquired it by buying it from someone else who, by force, kept others off of it.

Not necessarily. There are in fact people who have settled and passed down land through the generations. Another thing-I got the impression from Roy L that the Georgist view allows for ownership/stewardship of the land-only landowners owe a certain amount of money to "the community" for holding this land.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is not freedom. This is the State taxing an owner out of their possessions. I'm a sound money allodial title to land and all other property too, guy. The State should be able to function on fees for service. To hell with taxing land. Once one buys property, it should be theirs to do whatever the owner sees fit.

Aren't you one of the members who argues in favor of "commonly held" land like roads, etc? This conflicts with the point you make here.

 

[Travlyr]

Aren't you one of the members who argues in favor of "commonly held" land like roads, etc? This conflicts with the point you make here.

Where is the conflict? I claim that land should be owned by individuals and each landowner should have access to community held property (roads) in order to avoid trespassing on another individual's land.