The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[heavenlyboy34]

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

Fallacious is not the same as false, as you noted earlier in the post. (this is the fallacy fallacy) I was just trying to help you refine your argument. Your tone is really going to turn people off. It's a problem that many libertarians of all stripes have. It's a trait that you have to recognize you have and strive to improve. You are selling ideas, after all. No salesman has ever won over a client by insulting or talking down to them.

 

[Travlyr]

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.

I don't hold that view. Land can be owned.

A possession that was never theirs to begin with.

I disagree. Once a deed to land is established, then whoever holds that deed is the owner. Land is plentiful.

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.

There are still 650 million acres of land in the United States that is held by the federal government. It could be homesteaded to individuals in a color blind lottery. What happened in the past was not equitable. The future could be. I am not in favor of taxing the land.

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.

I don't understand the relevance of these questions. Why should it be based on how much work is required? Why should there be a limit?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

At the same time you believe in inviolate private property and inviolate "public" (socialized) property. As Mises and most every critic of socialism has noted, this internal contradiction (believing that "everyone" owns certain land and "someone" owns other land) causes the argument to collapse on itself. Block has elaborated on this in great detail. See "Privatization Of Roads And Highways: Human And Economic Factors". See also the famous "Tragedy Of The Commons".

 

[Travlyr]

At the same time you believe in inviolate private property and inviolate "public" (socialized) property. As Mises and most every critic of socialism has noted, this internal contradiction (believing that "everyone" owns certain land and "someone" owns other land) causes the argument to collapse on itself. Block has elaborated on this in great detail. See "Privatization Of Roads And Highways: Human And Economic Factors". See also the famous "Tragedy Of The Commons".

There is no contradiction. Land locked land by private owners are inaccessible without trespassing. Private ownership of roads make no sense. Private management, yes, but not private ownership. Everyone should be able to travel on common property without trespassing on private property.

 

[Steven Douglas]

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...
2. Although pundits and politicians are often hard put to provide an
instance in which this has happened...

The surprise isn't that pundits and politicians are hard put to provide an instance in which this has happened. The surprise is in the utter gall on the parts of those who would suggest that it doesn't happen. Nobody collects that kind of data. There is no check box anywhere during a sale that says, "I'm selling my home because I can no longer afford to pay ridiculous rent payments to the government." It's just recorded as a sale.

That's like the native in Dances With Wolves who, upon finding the Lieutenant's hat on the prairie and keeping it as his own, says to everyone with a straight face, "He didn't want it any more."

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?

The priceless logic employed here is your conflation of rentals and ownership; rental prices with sale prices, with the assumption that the word "want" refers to "wants to forever rent". Compare with anything else that is actually owned, so that it's free of obfuscation:

The shovel that I own I paid for ONCE, even though I use it over and over again (and COULD rent it out to others). I may "want" that shovel just as badly as the first time I bought it every time I use it, but the original price, having already been paid, is amortized over the life of the shovel. That expectation isn't "priceless logic". It's absolutely and perfectly NORMAL for anything that is paid for ONCE and truly owned.

What happens now? If you can't afford to live somwhere you move to somwhere you can afford.

Extend that logic out to a personal property tax, and ridiculousness of that logic becomes apparent in your paradigm wherein ownership is not even an option. You already DID afford whatever it is you bought and own, like any other thing considered your property. With landownership, you already ARE living somewhere you can afford, if that land is paid for. Under LVT, the land becomes priceless -- not for sale -- FOR RENT ONLY, as the state assumes the role of those people geolibertarians hate and revile the most.

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.

Wrong. "LVT" in and of itself doesn't have any of that. It doesn't have exemptions, and it doesn't have provisions for deferring payments. Your version might - Roy's versions would, but that's not "LVT" - those are your arbitrary PROPOSED exceptions to the LVT rule you want established.

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.

That's where geolibs earn and deserve my complete and utter contempt as the callous soulless collectivist thieves that they are. Carry that forward to a personal property tax. If someone doesn't have the cash to pay it, they can always liquidate their property. It's their "choice", right? They are "free" to not own, or to "own" (read=rent from the ultimate owner state) something cheaper. Silly Billies, with all that unnecessarily self-inflicted poverty.

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.

I have a better idea - how about we just keep the propertarian framework, and the widow can just own what was already paid for and is already hers by right? And that obnoxiously vague thing called "community" that geolibs like to invoke for entitlements can go stuff itself, while the government remains nothing but a servant with a decidedly limited role.

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...

The younger generation isn't held hostage. That's the geolib fantasy delusion. The thieves in that generation can go and do likewise, or draw back really bloody stumps when they try to lay collectivist claim to what truly isn't theirs at all. Really. All thieves must hang. Not the pretend thieves that geolibs make landowners out to be, but the real thieves, who rationalize theft by recognizing no individual ownership rights where land is concerned. Those thieves. The real would-be thieves, who share in a collectivist balm for their thievery -- their sociopathic complicity for a guilt they should, but will never, feel.

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?

Nice class warfare rhetoric, but that one's easy. Whomever it is that strikes gold (even "property gold"), whether they earned it or just found it, is entitled to that gold - without regard to all the "genuinely poor" who were not as fortunate.

You can save a lot of money by trading down from a swanky home into a suitable place.

Thanks for the unsolicited savings advice for those who don't care about your ideas on how to "save money" through liquidating, and certainly wouldn't, and shouldn't, care about whatever you thought was "a suitable place" for them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no contradiction.

There is, and I spelled it out in black and white for you.

Land locked land by private owners are inaccessible without trespassing. Private ownership of roads make no sense. Private management, yes, but not private ownership. Everyone should be able to travel on common property without trespassing on private property.

It makes perfect sense. It already exists in several places. Had you read Block's book-available free here (and the other criticisms of government roads and territory), you would know this and have a good counter-argument.

 

[Travlyr]

There is, and I spelled it out in black and white for you.

You didn't spell anything out. That is how it is done now in the United States. The lone exception is that the State currently maintains the public property and I advocate for private management of it.

It makes perfect sense. It already exists in several places. Had you read Block's book (and the other criticisms of government roads and territory), you would know this and have a good counter-argument.

I read Block and he didn't even know that property ownership extends from the center of the Earth to the outer edges of the atmosphere.

It makes no sense. Private property owners have the legal right to prevent trespassers. Public property does not. Giving private owners the right to keep certain people, at their discretion, off the road is a failed policy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You didn't spell anything out. That is how it is done now in the United States. The lone exception is that the State currently maintains the public property and I advocate for private management of it.

Yes, it's the American way, so it MUST be correct. Please tell me you're joking. And I did spell it out. You simply don't agree. That's a fine opinion, but it's incorrect.

You I read Block and he didn't even know that property ownership extends from the center of the Earth to the outer edges of the atmosphere.

Red herring and false but glad you got in a snide, irrelevant comment just because you could.

It makes no sense. Private property owners have the legal right to prevent trespassers. Public property does not. Giving private owners the right to keep certain people, at their discretion, off the road is a failed policy.

Failed where? You claim to understand the subject, but don't know of the Dulles Greenway toll road and various other effective private roads. Public property has also been tried everywhere, and it fails. Not only is the government run infrastructure crumbling drastically, the incentive is toward lax upkeep and destruction rather than good maintenance and quality. (this the essentially the Tragedy Of The Commons)

And you're right that public property does not provide the legal right to preven trespassers. That's one reason it fails.

Come, now, amigo. You're the one making the positive claim. You should have a LOT better argument than what you've laid out.

 

[Travlyr]

Yes, it's the American way, so it MUST be correct. Please tell me you're joking. And I did spell it out. You simply don't agree. That's a fine opinion, but it's incorrect.

It works great. It was designed by our founding fathers. Road commissioners are elected officials. When I leave my home I leave my private property and it joins public property. I can travel virtually anywhere on public property without trespassing on anyone's private property. Several thousand miles of traveling and when I reach my destination, I can visit my friends and family on their private property. When I leave, then I can get right back on public property without trespassing on anyone's property. I truly don't see the problem with that.

Failed where? You claim to understand the subject, but don't know of the Dulles Greenway toll road and various other effective private roads. Public property has also been tried everywhere, and it fails. Not only is the government run infrastructure crumbling drastically, the incentive is toward lax upkeep and destruction rather than good maintenance and quality. (this the essentially the Tragedy Of The Commons)

Red herring and false but glad you got in a snide, irrelevant comment just because you could.

And you're right that public property does not provide the legal right to preven trespassers. That's one reason it fails.

Come, now, amigo. You're the one making the positive claim. You should have a LOT better argument than what you've laid out.

False? It is not a snide comment .. it is very relevant. Block is a professor writing a book. He should KNOW about property rights. Land rights extend from the center of the Earth to the outer edges of the atmosphere. People don't enforce their rights against airplanes because it is no big deal, but before the airplane it was virtually no issue at all.

Where do you think property rights begin and end?

Toll roads suck and I avoid them when I can. I do advocate for private competitive maintenance for roads. The infrastructure problem could be cured by the free market. I just don't want private ownership of the land under the road.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Toll roads suck and I avoid them when I can. I do advocate for private competitive maintenance for roads. The infrastructure problem could be cured by the free market. I just don't want private ownership of the land under the road.

What you are advocating here is a "mixed economy" (a type of fascism) in land. This system of quasi-private/public ownership is a big part of the reason we're in the mess we're in today. Regardless of your subjective opinion of toll roads, you're paying an "invisible"/hidden toll all the time. NOTHING in this world is free, my friend. The question is "in whose hands are roads better handled?" and the preponderance of the evidence tells us it is not "the public" (IOW, the government).

Where do you think property rights begin and end?

It is self-evident that property rights are determined by borders (either literal or by ownership claim). For example, the edges of a given parcel. It also extends upwards to an distance that is determined by market actors (not arbitrary state diktat).

 

[Roy L]

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.

Yes, many people prefer to condemn their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to lives of inescapable indentured servitude to idle landowners and mortgage lenders rather than suffer any inconvenience or discomfort to themselves that might result from living in a more free and just society.

But your fears are of course not very well founded. Most importantly, you won't be paying other taxes, the productive will not be carrying a large, greedy, parasitic landowning class on their backs, and costs of goods and services will therefore be much lower. So unless you are reliant on rent income, your actual disposable income will probably be double or triple what it is now once you stop paying for government twice. If you still find your UIE and your pension are not enough to pay your LVT, you have a number of reasonable alternatives:

1. You can sell your house and seek accommodation better suited to your needs and means (most rational people do this to "downsize" as they get older anyway).
2. You may be able to defer your LVT and have it come out of your estate, if you are going to leave one.
3. You can use the land productively enough to pay the LVT by, e.g., taking in boarders, allowing someone who lacks space to run a daycare in your home, renting out garden or parking space in your yard, etc.
4. You can ask for help from your kids (who will be grateful you don't want to move in with them).
5. Etc.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, many people prefer to condemn their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to lives of inescapable indentured servitude to idle landowners and mortgage lenders rather than suffer any inconvenience or discomfort to themselves that might result from living in a more free and just society.

But your fears are of course not very well founded. Most importantly, you won't be paying other taxes, the productive will not be carrying a large, greedy, parasitic landowning class on their backs, and costs of goods and services will therefore be much lower. So unless you are reliant on rent income, your actual disposable income will probably be double or triple what it is now once you stop paying for government twice. If you still find your UIE and your pension are not enough to pay your LVT, you have a number of reasonable alternatives:

1. You can sell your house and seek accommodation better suited to your needs and means (most rational people do this to "downsize" as they get older anyway).
2. You may be able to defer your LVT and have it come out of your estate, if you are going to leave one.
3. You can use the land productively enough to pay the LVT by, e.g., taking in boarders, allowing someone who lacks space to run a daycare in your home, renting out garden or parking space in your yard, etc.
4. You can ask for help from your kids (who will be grateful you don't want to move in with them).
5. Etc.

This is a really problematic part of your argument. I don't see what would prevent the government from jacking the LVT up over and over, just as they do with everything else. I concede as before that LVT is the least evil of possible taxes, but I don't see it not becoming onerous as some point simply because of the nature of government (especially in this country).

 

[redbluepill]

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.

It really has nothing to do with trust in the government. Georgists know as well as anyone that government can be a corrupted institution. And if an LVT was ever implemented nationally/locally we know it can also be abused. But are we to throw the baby out with the bathwater? If reforming our tax system this way has the potential to correct many of society's problems then why should we turn it down because a few politicians may change it or abuse it until it can no longer be recognizable as the LVT? On top of that, Georgists are also just as passionate about ridding almost every other tax (save user fees and pollution taxes). This would cut down the potential for abuse of power even more. Most Paulites aren't looking to eliminate government altogether. They are looking to decentralize it and simplify it. No better way to do that than to support LVT.

 

[Roy L]

I claim that land should be owned by individuals

I.e., you want certain individuals -- i.e., in fact, yourself -- to be privileged to violate others' rights without making just compensation in order to rob and enslave them. OK. Thought so.

and each landowner should have access to community held property (roads) in order to avoid trespassing on another individual's land.

And the landowners should be privileged to charge others for access to the roads the community provides. Check.

You are simply greedy for unearned wealth, and you want to live as a parasite on others' productive contributions. Simple.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It really has nothing to do with trust in the government. Georgists know as well as anyone that government can be a corrupted institution. And if an LVT was ever implemented nationally/locally we know it can also be abused. But are we to throw the baby out with the bathwater? If reforming our tax system this way has the potential to correct many of society's problems then why should we turn it down because a few politicians may change it or abuse it until it can no longer be recognizable as the LVT? On top of that, Georgists are also just as passionate about ridding almost every other tax (save user fees and pollution taxes). This would cut down the potential for abuse of power even more. Most Paulites aren't looking to eliminate government altogether. They are looking to decentralize it and simplify it. No better way to do that than to support LVT.

I think of it more like a cancer or parasite. It needs to be eliminated or driven into remission because of the massive damage it causes to the host. I understand that Georgists tend to desire getting rid of all other taxes-which you are to be lauded for.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And the landowners should be privileged to charge others for access to the roads the community provides. Check.

You are simply greedy for unearned wealth, and you want to live as a parasite on others' productive contributions. Simple.

I wouldn't go that far. An LVT could apply to roads just as easily as any other type of land.

 

[redbluepill]

Not necessarily. There are in fact people who have settled and passed down land through the generations.

Sure. That happens. But it doesn't change the fact that land is unique in that there was no original creator of land like there is for a house, car, garden, etc.

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.

As I mentioned above, private possession of land cannot be avoided. It is necessary to reap the rewards of labor. Paying LVT to the community would help ensure there is enough good land for the rest of us, not just for the privileged and politically-connected.

 

[Travlyr]

I.e., you want certain individuals -- i.e., in fact, yourself -- to be privileged to violate others' rights without making just compensation in order to rob and enslave them. OK. Thought so.

And the landowners should be privileged to charge others for access to the roads the community provides. Check.

You are simply greedy for unearned wealth, and you want to live as a parasite on others' productive contributions. Simple.

Not just for myself. I wish everyone who wants to own land could own some land without paying taxes on it. That is an impossible task, but just like air and water, land is a necessity for survival. I don't want to pay taxes on air or water either.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure. That happens. But it doesn't change the fact that land is unique in that there was no original creator of land like there is for a house, car, garden, etc.




As I mentioned above, private possession of land cannot be avoided. It is necessary to reap the rewards of labor. Paying LVT to the community would help ensure there is enough good land for the rest of us, not just for the privileged and politically-connected.

That really depends on the mechanism for LVT collection, yes? How do we find someone so virtuous and incorruptible that it would work? Also, how is "good" land defined? You and I may consider a piece of the empty sonoran desert undesirable, but a thoughtful person can probably find a way to make use of it. Down in Tuscon they have tourist traps and horse/cattle ranches, for example.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not just for myself. I wish everyone who wants to own land could own some land without paying taxes on it. That is an impossible task, but just like air and water, land is a necessity for survival. I don't want to pay taxes on air or water either.

You already pay taxes on the water (a utility-though in your state it may be indirect) and in a way you pay for the air because of the taxation necessary to enforce air pollution laws.