The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Travlyr]

So non-socialist countries that have taxation are now socialist? Is it worth communicating with the likes of you? Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



But are set by community demand.


Encouraging. You are getting there.

LVT is NOT a tax. It reclaims community created wealth. You have repeatedly been told this, but of course it does not sink in. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You have repeatedly been told how. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Land Value Tax is not a tax? Where did you go to school? Or did you go to school?

 

[Roy L]

Land Value Tax is not a tax? Where did you go to school? Or did you go to school?

It is a tax only in the same sense that a user fee like a toll on a public road is a tax: it raises revenue for public purposes. But like a road toll, LVT is VOLUNTARY: it simply requires repayment of what the landholder has taken. If you don't want to pay it, just stop depriving everyone else of the benefits government and the community provide at that location.

 

[Roy L]

Socialism is government control over the production of goods and services,

Wrong. It is collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital). As LVT has no effect on ownership of capital, and government administers possession and use of land in any case, LVT is by definition not socialism. Stop lying.

and that is accomplished through taxation.

Another stupid lie. Any country that has an income tax is socialist? Stop telling such stupid lies.

You keep arguing for it and I keep arguing against it.

No. You do not argue. You simply deny self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications.

Land values are subjectively valued by individuals.

Lie refuted many times. Individuals' subjective opinions are of land's UTILITY, not its VALUE. Value is what an item can be traded for in the market, and is therefore by definition not anyone's subjective opinion.

Collective economic activity by individuals is the economic activity of the community.

You might want to reconsider that statement: it's true.

You claim freedom comes from taxation. How?

By removing the landowner's privilege of enslaving the landless and taking the fruits of others' labor without contributing anything in return.

Exactly how does taxing a landowner make him/her more free?

ROTFL! "How does abolishing slavery make a slave owner more free?"

Abolishing absolute monarchy did not make men free by making the king more free, dumpling.

Duuuhhhhhhhhhhh.

How does community increase the value of land?

<yawn> Now you are just denying and refusing to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality again. Go to a place where there is no nearby community, and see how much the land is worth. Now compare it with land in the middle of a community.

Land value is just capitalized after-tax rent, and rent is economic advantage. The economic advantage obtainable by using a land parcel comes from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

An individual can increase the value of land by clearing it, preparing it to produce good crops, and/or fencing it for livestock, and/or building a dwelling in which to protect against the elements, etc.

No, that adds to improvement value, not land value. Land value is by definition the value the land would have if all improvements were removed.

Individuals can increase the value of land. Exactly how does community increase the value of land?

See above. How much is land worth where it is more than half an hour's drive to the nearest public school?

You just have to refuse to know all facts.

 

[rpwi]

Ideally monopolies commissions should intervene in land ownership. It appears they ignore land, particularly in Britain where few own most of the land. But the land-baron cannot hoard land for speculation purposes, as the tax is due whether used or not, so monopolies will be reduced. He will sell off land he cannot use productively. A smallholder paying no rent to a land-baron may make the land economically productive.

Where do you draw the line over what is and isn't considered a land monopoly?

If 10% of the population owns 80% of the land, is that a monopoly? If so, why not 10% owning 79.9%? What economic determinant determines when land has been concentrated to monopolistic conditions?

 

[rpwi]

The fact that inflation is a monetary phenomenon on which LVT would have absolutely no effect.

Are you sure that inflation is exclusively a monetary phenomenon? I disagree.

Say a blight wipes 90% of all crops in the US. Would not that cause inflation?

Plus currently with fed funds targetting the market has all the money they want.

In fact when you consider bank deposits, near money and other assets that are easy to switch into and out of cash...I don't see a fixed supply of money being a strong constraint on inflation.

In fact, the risk would be DEflation, as LVT eliminated land value and reduced production costs across the board.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. Most of the time when companies face rising costs...they merely pass on these costs to the consumers. They can do so, because their competition is in most likelyhood facing the same rising costs. In fact, many corporations in uncompetitive industries actually like to see regulations/taxes...because they know their competition faces the same, its creates barriers to entry for new companies and they can just pass on the costs to consumers.

The fixity of land's supply. As the landowner can't affect either supply or demand, he can't affect price. If he tries to charge more than the market rent, he just ends up getting nothing. This is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years. LVT cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to tenants, producers, employees, consumers, or anyone else. It is borne entirely by the landowner. The actual effect of LVT is therefore to eliminate speculative withholding of land, LOWERING rents.

Normally, yes...a business can't merely raise prices all things being equal because competition will steal their business. But what happens is that land creates a natural barrier to entry to the market place. I can't create more of it. So say I tax coal mines 1 million dollars a year. Normally each mine charges 1 million dollars. Will the mines go out of business? No. They will simply raise their rates. They can do so because their competition also is facing higher costs and if they don't raise rates apportionately they will run out of supply.

People won't pay it. If they would, what's to stop him from charging it now?

For starters....with a land tax...the government/people would have that extra money that they didn't have before. With more money this would create inflation.

One can never know for sure what a government will do in the event. That is a political problem peculiar to each jurisdiction, and irrelevant to what kind of policy government should pursue as a matter of principle. Implementation is an issue no matter what policy you advocate, even if it is no policy at all.

It is a tricky issue...I don't know what the best answer is.

 

[Roy L]

Where do you draw the line over what is and isn't considered a land monopoly?

If 10% of the population owns 80% of the land, is that a monopoly? If so, why not 10% owning 79.9%? What economic determinant determines when land has been concentrated to monopolistic conditions?

Land is a canonical example of monopoly. As the supply of land is fixed, the land market is always inherently a monopoly market. Given the assumption of rationality or profit maximization, it doesn't matter if one person owns all the land or it is divided up among everyone: no one can do any better than to charge the full rent of each parcel.

 

[Roy L]

Are you sure that inflation is exclusively a monetary phenomenon? I disagree.

Say a blight wipes 90% of all crops in the US. Would not that cause inflation?

No.

Plus currently with fed funds targetting the market has all the money they want.

Hehe. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't have all the money I want.

In fact when you consider bank deposits, near money and other assets that are easy to switch into and out of cash...I don't see a fixed supply of money being a strong constraint on inflation.

When has inflation ever occurred without increased money supply?

Most of the time when companies face rising costs...they merely pass on these costs to the consumers. They can do so, because their competition is in most likelyhood facing the same rising costs.

Bingo. It is only the landowner who faces rising costs with LVT, not the producer, because the tax does not alter the land rent. Google "Law of Rent."

Normally, yes...a business can't merely raise prices all things being equal because competition will steal their business. But what happens is that land creates a natural barrier to entry to the market place.

Yes but that barrier is already in place.

I can't create more of it.

No one can.

So say I tax coal mines 1 million dollars a year. Normally each mine charges 1 million dollars. Will the mines go out of business? No. They will simply raise their rates. They can do so because their competition also is facing higher costs and if they don't raise rates apportionately they will run out of supply.

That tax will reduce the number of coal mines. LVT WILL NOT reduce the amount of land. Any landowner who tries to pass on the tax will just find he loses his tenants.

For starters....with a land tax...the government/people would have that extra money that they didn't have before. With more money this would create inflation.

No, the proposal is to reduce and abolish other taxes commensurately. And even if it weren't, it would not be inflationary because more taxes means less money for taxpayers to spend.

 

[rpwi]

Say a blight wipes 90% of all crops in the US. Would not that cause inflation?

No.

Why would increasing the ratio of money to that which money can buy (through counterfeiting) cause inflation... Yet when you keep money static and destroy wealth, that doesn't create inflation? If a blight wipes out 90% of our crops...wouldn't it be logical to assume say lettuce would be more expensive than normal? Wouldn't this contribute to inflation?

Plus currently with fed funds targeting the market has all the money they want.

Hehe. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't have all the money I want.

But you could borrow from those you can create money directly or indirectly. This makes it very easy for LVT to be inflationary.

When has inflation ever occurred without increased money supply?

Not the fairest question as most central banks constantly expand the monetary base and the banks almost always expand the monetary aggregates.

So say I tax coal mines 1 million dollars a year. Normally each mine charges 1 million dollars. Will the mines go out of business? No. They will simply raise their rates. They can do so because their competition also is facing higher costs and if they don't raise rates apportionately they will run out of supply.

That tax will reduce the number of coal mines. LVT WILL NOT reduce the amount of land.

Perhaps I chose incorrect terms...let's just say that privately owned coal deposits (not mines) would be taxed.

Any landowner who tries to pass on the tax will just find he loses his tenants.

There are many ways in which privilege can be extracted from land. If I have an unjust apportionment of land and simply mine/harvest the fruits of the land and sell them directly onto the market...there is no rent per say. But there is an indirect rent in the markup of what I sell. I could buy labor and sell land + stored labor and my privileged status would enable me to collect unjust rewards without applying any literal rent.

But assuming you were referring to a more abstract definition of a tenant...I do believe the land baron could raise prices with LVT. I mean forget the LVT for a moment...why don't landowners raise the prices now? The answer is that the competition it too strong at that point. Why don't they lower prices to increase volume? Because they lack the capacity to fulfill demand at the price. Beating your competition is no good if you run out of what you sell.

Granted apartments are not land, but they will make a useful analogy here. Say the average apartment collections 800 dollars in rent per month and 600 goes to pay the debt financing cost of the apartment and 200 goes to profit. The government enacts a 300 dollar tax per month (on average). Will the apartments go out of business? It looks like a -100 dollar a month loss! No. Everybody needs somewhere to sleep...so the apartments will be able to raise the the amount they charge to 1100 per month. I mean a couple of apartments might believe they can only raise rent by 100, so they don't get any profit but they at least pay the bills. But then they would fill up fast and they would not have the capacity to utilize their minimally marked up apartments.

This raises another question though.

Why does LVT discriminate against equity finance over debt finance. Farmland is the dominant use of land in my area and most are financed heavily by banks. Isn't it fair to say that loan assets can be culpable in extracting privileged profits just as personal/company profits can be? I mean say a Macadamia Farm will generated 200k in revenue a year. The cost of the farm is 1 million. If I buy the farm with 20% equity and 80% debt...is that significantly different (from the standpoint of privilege) of buying the farm with 80% equity and 20% debt)? We (equity) and the banks will enjoy the revenue of the farm either way...it just will be split differently. It could be dividends or it could be interest payments. Why would LVT pick on me the owner and not the banker? Isn't the banker guilty of fleecing the public?

No, the proposal is to reduce and abolish other taxes commensurately. And even if it weren't, it would not be inflationary because more taxes means less money for taxpayers to spend.

But if he were to be able to raise prices as I suggest, then he wouldn't have less money.

 

[Steven Douglas]

One can never know for sure what a government will do in the event. That is a political problem peculiar to each jurisdiction, and irrelevant to what kind of policy government should pursue as a matter of principle. Implementation is an issue no matter what policy you advocate, even if it is no policy at all.

It is a tricky issue...I don't know what the best answer is.

This is a problem faced with our government when interpreting corporate charters. In American jurisprudence, it is not the stated intent of a corporation or the philosophies held by founding members that are considered by the legislature or the courts when granting or interpreting a corporate charter, but rather the maximum extent of corporate powers that could be employed by a corporate body once a charter is granted. In reality, governments are absolutely no different. The world has learned from sad experience that what a dictator promises is often meaningless. Once firmly empowered and in control, s/he can be benevolent or malevolent. Despite all political assurances, there is nothing in his/her "charter" that guarantees otherwise, and that goes back to the question of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men.

This parallels one of the biggest (political) problems facing LVT proponents, and that is how they deal with valid objections regarding what abuses COULD happen at the hands of the State (the taxing jurisdictions) once these bodies assume de facto ownership of all land, and ultimate control of all land titles, including a) how land is valued and ad valorem taxes are levied for land rents, b) what other taxes might still exist and to what extent after implementation, and c) how wealth is spent or otherwise redistributed once collected.

Objections, even in this thread, are dealt with as implementation proposals as they are imagined and devised by individuals -- everything from formulas for land valuation to exemptions (and/or dividends) for individuals. But the devil in their details are in the fact that none of these proposals are presented as first principles, but are interpreted by many as only the spoonful of political or philosophical promise sugar to help the LVT medicine go down.

The fact that there are no guarantees (even offered) is usually dismissed, as most of the LVT proponents I have interacted with consider all such objections to be secondary issues (out of those forthright enough to admit the objections are valid), while holding up LVT as a matter of first principle. As such, LVT proponents tend to be far more trusting of the state, and instead push hard, with moral polemics and economic arguments, that LVT should be agreed upon in principle and implemented first, with problems or potential abuses dealt with and corrected after the fact. That approach creates a political brick wall that is predictably stained with the blood from the smashed foreheads of many LVT proponents, including Henry George.

LVT proponents are definitely fighting an uphill battle with regard to trust in government, especially in light of governments they already see as evil for the policies they've enacted to date. The only reason a government would be trusted with LVT: the fact of LVT would be evidence that the government is finally "doing the right thing" - headed in the "right direction". And who doesn't love and trust a government that does according to their will, their philosophies?

As a matter of first principals, I look to the protection of individuals - NOT "the community" and not "the state".

Many opponents, like myself, look to a much broader context in terms of the issue of individual (minority by definition) trust in the state. One of those trust issues stems from the state's proven "revenue expansion" tendencies - including levels of obfuscating complexity - for any revenue stream once the power to collect is established as a matter of principle. Few argued against the arguably "simple" Income Tax when it was ratified in 1913, and primarily because it had NO discernible affect on most individuals. "First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out..." In 1913, the top tax bracket was 7 percent on all income over $500,000 (orders of magnitude more today’s dollars), and the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent. Most individuals paid no income tax, so it wasn't an issue for most. The rate of expansion that finally encompassed the vast majority of the population with confiscatory abuses were exponential, but blossomed later into a monster, AFTER the camel's nose was squarely in the tent, with income tax established as a first principle. The seed of another head for the hydra.

I have yet to hear an LVT proponent deal with this except to dismiss it as something that just "goes with the [political] territory". It does not seem to be a problem for them, or a valid objection for LVT, first and foremost because they honestly believe in earnest that landownership is the biggest evil ever contrived, and the root cause of most of the poverty and oppression in the world, and that LVT is a panacea - the only moral, sensible, economically feasible and sustainable regime possible. They also observe that LVT is already implemented, tried to whatever degree and form it is tried in other parts of the world, which they are quick to point to as model successes, which cause them to hold out hope. Comes the continued cry: LVT first, corrections after. Get that camel's nose squarely in the tent. Potential abuses are incidental, and up to the people themselves to correct.

Anyone forced to change their opinion is still of that same opinion, so the objection that is constantly dismissed still remains. What is to prevent LVT from being just another revenue stream - one more ADDITIONAL power, a system of abuses to stack on top of the rest? Why is there no push to abolish other taxes FIRST, as a matter of first principles? Obviously, if the dream of so-called "single taxers" is to be realized, to get from here to there requires at least the acknowledgment that a sow's ear is in already in place of the LVT silk purse. The state has already become addicted to current revenue streams, and has created REAL ADDICTIONS to real people (MOST of the population is addicted and dependent in one form or another) who rely on these revenue streams for their lives and livelihoods. So a compromise in the form of a transition proposal has to made. And how is that treated by LVT proponents?

"...the proposal is to reduce and abolish other taxes commensurately.

And by "the proposal", Roy means, of course, "his proposal". Even as a transition, or shift from many tax mechanisms into one, the absolute abolishment of other taxes (by a given date) could be proposed as a "LVT sink or swim" rule. But it isn't. As a matter of first principles LVT implementation could be CONDITIONED upon the abolishment (NOT just promises of reduction) of other taxes. But you won't hear that proposal from very many, because the elimination of other taxes is only presented in the context of a theoretical possibility, and not a guarantee of any kind. Never a condition. The cry is for LVT, first and foremost - fix and deal with everything else after. Why, it will be so liberating, and work so swimmingly well, that governments would be fools not to get rid of the other, now unnecessary, taxes! Now sell that to people living in the real world, who have their eye on the reputation of the state, and not some imagined state that would finally be sated, and that would magically transform into a Good Witch once the LVT panacea is applied.

Likewise comes the objection: What is to prevent the tax or taxing rules or formulas from morphing or expanding to swallow up and encompass individuals in their homes, even on the worst lands? What is to prevent a floor from being established - a minimum LVT tax from being levied on everyone? What is to prevent land valuations from being inflated, just as property taxes so often are -- whether by assessing values higher, or by increasing the mill rates, so that a higher bill results from even the lowest valuations?

LVT proponents from Henry George on have proposed only that "the full value" of unearned land rents be recovered. That's LAND RENT TIMES ONE (although some propose that 85-90% be levied, acknowledging the role that landholders would play in collection and administration). However, what if that turned out not to be sufficient for government's stated needs? What is to prevent that rule from being changed to LAND RENT TIMES 1.5, or even 2, or 3, or 7? You can still value land the same way, but revenue could increase by rationalize that 1X land rent is not sufficient, and raise the multiplier accordingly (AS IS DONE WITH REGULARITY WITH PROPERTY TAXES). A war is all it takes for that to happen, along with the straight-faced assurance that it would be temporary only, due to extraordinary circumstances.

Roy-the-benevolent-dictator says that this could not happen, but that's because that is not in his proposal -- that's a different LVT, and something different than what he proposes. Some argue that it would be impossible for the state to increase land rents, or that it would "not be in the state's interest", based on their reasoning, their preferred rules, and their preferred formulas. But that's no different than saying how things would work if you were the dictator. It's the same reasoning that benevolence COULD be found in any dictator. It is completely within the realm of possibility that a supreme dictator COULD BE benevolent. It's NOT probable given the history of the world, but it is certainly possible. But what does that have to do with trust?

LVT could be conditioned upon absolute guarantees (not political promises or incidental, secondary, or initial assurances) that individuals would be Constitutionally secure in their homes, truly free and unaffected by the tax -- not just as a matter of personal exemptions for some formulated amount. Not "exempt", but rather IMMUNE to the degree everyone would be. In other words, landownership and allodial title not abolished at all for primary residences, even if an area limit was placed that applied equally to all. That would stop the vast majority of all land speculation in its tracks, and allow LVT to function outside the realm of personal living conditions. Landowners of primary residences could speculate and trade up or down all they wanted, but only to an area limit -- the remainder of the land could be allocated as a matter of taxable privilege only, according to the dictates of LVT, but the people themselves would be free.

But no. Private landownership (allodial title) in any form is already condemned as the evil of evils - abusive in all cases, and which must be stamped out entirely.

For LVT proponents their uphill battle is well deserved, I think, with proposals I hope continue to be ignored, and continue to go down in flames. LVT is nothing more than an ad valorem tax on land -- a mechanism for revenue to the taxing jurisdiction. All arguments of the incidental effects and wonders of LVT notwithstanding, LVT in itself is not a first principle, and can be abused like any other mechanism. Until geolibs get their actual first principles straight, and until they focus on all individuals and their rights, as NON-COLLECTIVIZED, NON-SOCIALIZED rights, I'll continue to see the majority of them as little more than misguided socialist religious zealots on a mission to make perpetual renters out of everyone -- not just the "evil landowners" they fantasize about turning the tables on.

 

[rpwi]

...

Oh, I definitely see the LVT as a cure that could be worse than than the disease. I however acknowledge that there is a disease. How significant it is...I don't know.

Out of curiosity, do you yourself believe that private land ownership can create unjust privilege? To me it clearly can. A government could award the entire continent of North America to a settler and mainstream economics would accept that as being just peachy. Is that an unfair extreme example? So what if say colonial Britain awarded the region of New England to just one person? Too extreme? What about just Maine? What about an entire county in Maine? Using the a limit, you can quickly establish that any sort of private land could lead to tyranny.

Would equal land delegation from government to citizens lead to privilege? IMO no and would be a good solution....(assuming no population growth and equal access to inheritance). But even then the probability that government could PERFECTLY sub-allocate land is too remote IMO. We have mis-allocation...it's just a matter of degree and whether it is significant or not.

To me that there is a land problem is completely separate from any apparent fixes. I could have a blood infection...but just because leaches didn't cure me, doesn't mean I don't have a blood infection. In the same manner, there can be a land issue, but just because LVT is not the right answer...doesn't mean there still isn't a land question.

There are many qualms with the LVT...but IMO the biggest is that in our modern economy productive assets are somewhat fungible. Say the government in the early 20th century gave the entire island chain of Hawaii to one individual. He could use he property to say grow lots of fruit trees...and profit in excess of his proportionate contributions to the economy. Or he could sell he land to United Fruit...and use that money to buy t-bills. This individual still enjoys a life of privilege...yet owns no land. Along comes the LVT to 'right the wrongs'. And yet the land seller suffers no taxes (despite his enrichment from land) and United Fruit bears full responsibility for the LVT tax (until the population grows then they too enjoy privilege). This is what IMO chiefly makes LVT so complex and unwieldy in a modern economy as a proper answer to the land question.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Out of curiosity, do you yourself believe that private land ownership can create unjust privilege? To me it clearly can.

Yes. LVT throws the baby out with the bathwater, as it shifts even the possibility of abuse and unjust privilege entirely to the state. And this is on the naive assumption that at least the state has to "give something back".

Originally, one of Henry George's little known proposals along with LVT, which he later abandoned, was limiting the area of apportioned land parcels.

A government could award the entire continent of North America to a settler and mainstream economics would accept that as being just peachy.

Yes, and it doesn't matter whether the award of a massive area of land is granted privately to one or held entirely in reserve by the state (as in the case of hundreds of millions of acres of BLM lands). In both cases the effect is the same, as it affects and can be oppressive to individuals. If LVT proponents argued that these lands be made available FIRST (as a matter of first principles) is there any question about what would happen to the support they enjoy by all the Greens who are among some of the staunchest supporters of LVT? Roy has stated that he believes that NO lands should be withheld from the market. And I agree. You see Roy and I go the rounds - the Greens, many of whom already view humans as an aberration and blight on nature, who believe that humans should be separated "from nature", confined as much as possible to small vertical concrete jungles, would be all over him like white on rice.

I'm all about individual rights, which are NOT collective or socialized in any way, as I see that as a sure-fire recipe for tyranny and abuse. I believe that ALL individuals are entitled to the opportunity for the very privileges LVT proponents argue as belonging to "the community" as a matter of right (not conditional privilege). I do not, however, believe that this power should unlimited for anyone, public or private. But that's not a problem for me as a matter of principle. We already have limitations on all rights, especially as their impinges on the rights of others. The right to free speech precludes yelling fire in a crowded theater, just as it precludes yelling into someone's ear through an amplifier at 130 decibels.

Thus, hypothetically, if individuals already had the absolute untrammeled RIGHT to allodial title of purchased lands, I would not consider it unreasonable that this was limited per individual (and excluded from foreigners, corporations and others acting as a matter of privilege only). Not the limited ownership of land. That can still be unlimited. Just the right to purchase and own land (based on land area, NOT some variable amount of an exemption that applied against value) as a sovereign, duty-free, the area limit of which would apply equally to every individual. Under that implementation so-called "unearned" rents would be enjoyed by individuals, but limited only to a given area, and therefore not prone to monopolistic abuse. If that was in place - not as a possibility or a political promise or legislative footnote, but rather an express Constitutional guarantee that I felt I could trust, then I really would not care about how the rest of LVT was formulated for those acting outside of the realm of individual right, and into the realm of commercial privilege, with two market classes coexist: one with rights, and one with conditional privileges, as the class with actual rights (individuals) naturally serves to keep the privileged class, and the entire market by extension, in check.

Also note that I am not proposing "free" land to anyone, or an ownership entitlement as a grant. The state could auction unallocated lands and take in revenues as these are introduced into the market. All of those lands could be subject to LVT -- with the exception of individuals who are absolutely immune based on a given per-individual area. Then are the children free. They could even compete with the state for land rents (keeping the state in check), as they rent their allocated lands to privileged entities for a fee. One less person for the state to be concerned about "reclaiming" rents for. Nobody is deprived in the process.

Meanwhile, you have an individual who is willing to rent their land CHEAP. They have a right to own duty-free land, but no means to acquire it. Think the market wouldn't provide for that? "We'll buy your land for you and help you pay for it in as rent paid to you for a given time."? The value of the immunity is inherent to the individual, and non-transferable. Suddenly individuals who are not exercising their immunity become valued by those acting as a matter of privilege only, and not right.

I could be wrong, but for me, that protects individual rights, leaves the market free, and ends all possible tyranny, public or private. The state could experiment with anything it wanted outside that realm without affecting the individuals who would be forever immune, as a matter of existence as a real person, and their citizenship immunity. And since this immunity-by-area would have to apply equally to all - without respect of persons, and applicable ONLY to real, free and natural persons under the law, what do you think the very wealthy landowners are going to want that area amount to be -- given you have to multiply that area by the entire population? It won't be small, of that much I'm fairly certain. And if the population grew to the point where more population existed than immunities per area could be granted - that's when the area of immunity could shrink accordingly.

The People should not have actual unalienable rights to landownership. Only The Persons.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Yes. LVT throws the baby out with the bathwater, as it shifts even the possibility of abuse and unjust privilege entirely to the state.

Gobbledygook!

Originally, one of Henry George's little known proposals along with LVT, which he later abandoned, was limiting the area of apportioned land parcels.

Henry George DID NOT invent taxation of land values. He originally wanted state ownership of land and leased back as in highly successful Hong Kong. But saw that taxation of land by its value is the perfect answer. He proposed many things, so did many others, when refining his thoughts.

This has been extedned to Geonomics. This takes into account all land and its resources, electromagnetic spectrum, seas, seabed, etc. All common resources given by nature.

The People should not have actual unalienable rights to landownership. Only The Persons.

The people "own" the land. Title (a set of rights) is granted for occupation. But the people reclaim the wealth they created from inelastic and unique land.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Henry George DID NOT invent taxation of land values.

I never claimed that he invented it, not that it's the slightest bit relevant to anything we're discussing. The genesis of the idea came to George from John Stuart Mill, who got it from his father, James Mill.

Mr. George...stumbled across Mill's pamphlets, published in 1870, on the reform of land tenure. In those pamphlets Mill for the first time put forward the famous proposal for the appropriation of the unearned increment. But the proposal was not a new one. It is to be found in the first edition of Mill's book, published in 1848, and it is to be found still further back than that in his father's book on political economy, published in 1821.

Arnold Toynbee, "Progress and poverty" a criticism of Mr. Henry George, 1883

He originally wanted state ownership of land and leased back as in highly successful Hong Kong. But saw that taxation of land by its value is the perfect answer. He proposed many things, so did many others, when refining his thoughts.

Are you implying that Hong Kong was in Henry George's thoughts at the time, or were you just throwing that in for good measure because you think it's a good model and selling point for LVT? I answered your Hong Kong question several posts back and you never responded. Go read it - the history of Hong Kong, the fact that it has more than just an LVT for revenue, and especially the point about 95% of Hong Kong undeveloped, and withheld from leasing, development, occupation or other use.

And George didn't just see taxation of land by its value as the perfect answer; he saw it as a panacea, given his myopic belief that private landownership was ultimately responsible for all of the poverty, misery, suffering and economic oppression in the world.

This has been extedned to Geonomics. This takes into account all land and its resources, electromagnetic spectrum, seas, seabed, etc. All common resources given by nature.

And that extension is the "dirty little secret" that creates yet another strong objection to LVT as a camel's nose in the tent, and another reason it appeals to Leftist Greens and eco-fascists everywhere, because for them the "single tax" solution is not just about common ownership and ad valorem taxes levied on land alone, but could extend, by that same theory to all resources (READ=factors of production) provided by nature. A "single tax mechanism" from myriad resources. Land, for this ilk, is just the foot in the door.

The people "own" the land. Title (a set of rights) is granted for occupation. But the people reclaim the wealth they created from inelastic and unique land.

That's certainly one way of framing it. Do you know what the word 'normative' means -- the difference between a positive 'is', and a normative 'should', or 'ought'?

 

[redbluepill]

Baloney. I understand what you are saying, I'm just not buying into your bullshit. "40% of the land area is reserved as country parks and nature reserves." <- Socialism. Pack the people in the cities, tax them on their land, hoard the rest of it for the common good determined by rulers. That is socialism to me. Commonly created wealth ... LOL ... what a joke of a concept. Of course I am self-interested and of course I am greedy. The entire world is made up of greedy self-interested people. That is why individuals create wealth from the resources of the Earth. That is why they should be allowed to own as much land as they can manage. Geo philosophy is just dumb socialist collectivism that you are trying to paint with the gibberish freedom brush.

War is not really Peace. Tyranny is not really Liberty. Collectivism is not really Individualism. Geoism does not deliver freedom for Individuals.

Allodial title to land and all other possessions delivers freedom.

One of the great libertarian thinkers of the 20th century, Albert Jay Nock, would disagree

"The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."

--Albert J. Nock "Thoughts on Utopia"
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

 

[EcoWarrier]

One of the great libertarian thinkers of the 20th century, Albert Jay Nock, would disagree

"The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription [direction], but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."

--Albert J. Nock "Thoughts on Utopia"
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

"George's blend of radicalism and conservatism can puzzle one, until it is seen as a reconciliation of the two. The system is internally consistent, but defies conventional stereotypes."
- Professor Mason Gaffney (US economist)​

Geoism, an economic movement, can fit into any political ism, that confuses many as can be seen by responses on this thread. Marxism, Socialism, Libertarianism, have all been directed towards Geoism. Quite amusing.

 

[EcoWarrier]

In the wake of the industrial revolution a sub-underclass emerged of grinding poverty. How could this happen with all these technological advances and mass-production bringing down prices? This baffled many. This should not be so. Many analyzed the situation. Karl Marx analyzed and wrote mainly on the failures of Capitalism - and got most right. He came up with his solutions to rectify this imbalance in society where an army of poor was created - an army of poor that should never have materialized.

The likes of Henry George was also baffled why we had an army of poor in an age of technological advancement. He concluded differently in his solution.

Many concluded that the problem that created this layer of grinding poverty was the free-market. To them it enabled wealth to quickly rise to the top and stay there. They viewed the free-market had to be strictly controlled or eliminated. Many kept the free-market and introduced socialist constructs, which worked in alleviating the grinding poverty level. But it was not the complete answer as a massive imbalance in wealth distribution continued. And the root of the problem did not lay with a true free-market.

Many just were apologists for the system that created this grinding poverty pointing to laziness of the working people, etc, etc, and wanted it to remain. They tended to be people who gained a lot out of the far from perfect system - self-interest and greed. This is largely the case today.

George saw that the free-market was a success and created all this wealth and advancement, so must be kept and be the core. George based his theories on the free-market. An unrigged and unmonopolized free-market. A economic system that was very free and largely self controlling with minimal interference from the state. That is fine but by itself it would not completely solve the problem.

George saw that the root of the problem that created the massive imbalance was that commonwealth was being appropriated by private individuals and organizations - socialized wealth was being privatized aiding in creating the grinding poverty layer. He also saw that private wealth was being socialized by taking income from individuals - private wealth was being socialized. By reversing this injustice the wrongs will be righted. George sought to keep socially created wealth in the social domain and privately created wealth in the private domain. So simple. Bingo! It works.


1. Keep socially created wealth socialized.
2. Keep privately created wealth privatized.

So elegant, so simple.

 

[EcoWarrier]

I love these made up empty rhetorical, words, statements and phrases that the defeated always come up with:

1. Leftist Greens
2. eco-fascists

 

[Steven Douglas]

It's funny - all along I've never really been against LVT, but more in strong defense of what I consider a much higher principle that I believe transcends LVT completely. This principle is one that is either disregarded or only poorly considered at best by most LVT proponents, who believe that the taxing mechanism will magically protect individual rights on its own.

Note that in this post I am deliberately begging the propertarian question by referring to land in terms of ownership, and not a mere "holding" or other term. That is because what I am proposing is ownership. Just not absolute, and not applicable to just any old entity that comes along. Also for the sake of this post, when I say "own" or "ownership", I mean as a matter of allodial title, but not the classical definition or usage, as the status would be inherent in the OWNER, NOT THE TITLE, NOT THE LAND ITSELF.

So I'm jumping on the LVT bandwagon, albeit as a complete rogue who rejects ALL FORMER VERSIONS on principle, while embracing all of the parts I know for a fact are well-founded.

So here's my Proviso, qualified addendum to Locke's, and my thoughts in a nutshell for a mechanism, in the form of an inalienable right, which would function extremely well alongside LVT as a single tax in what I would consider a truly free market -- to those who are truly free as a matter of right.

THEORETICAL PER CAPITA LIMITS

Locke talked about what happens once a population grows. However, with any population there is ALREADY a limit to the amount of land everyone could, in theory, own. Because land is a requirement for life, and because I view the opportunity for duty-free sovereign ownership of land (along with the power to dispose of it) in that light, I also acknowledge the fact that land could be withheld from access by any number of entities or mechanisms, including rent-seeking monopolies (public or private), acting as barriers to entry for individuals.

My thought is that LVT could, and should, apply to those entities acting as barriers, without that mechanism providing a barrier to the individuals LVT is ostensibly purported to protect in the first place.

As an example, the population of the US as of the latest census is currently around 313,735,000. The total land area privately owned is approximately 1,378,000,000 acres. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14j.pdf

That area divided by the total population comes out to 4.39 acres that are theoretically possible per individual to own. Federal lands included, the total area is roughly 2,264,000,000 acres, or 7.21 acres that are theoretically possible at this time for each person in the population to own.

Land is not fungible. While neighboring lands may have similar values, no two land parcels are exactly alike, and the value determinations for individuals will always vary for any number of reasons. Thus, where primary personal residential land is concerned, I disregard the idea that anyone has a right to access to land that is "just as much and as good" as what someone else already owns. It doesn't matter. Area, not value, is the opportunity floor anyone can attain and work with, duty free, and trade up or down from.

No matter how you slice it, land area is fixed, while population is not. A ratio of land area to population could be used to determine an area amount (always transient) for which INDIVIDUALS (to the absolute exclusion of foreigners, corporations, collectives, or anyone acting as a matter of privilege) could be IMMUNE to LVT. Completely and absolutely. NOT "exempt", as a matter of market value, but immune, as a matter of area per individual. If you're fortunate enough to have primary residential land in a city that grows up around you, in an area where the land increases in value, the land rents upon sale are your private windfall, which does not belong to neighbors, the community or anyone else.

Meanwhile, the majority of the now privately owned and controlled 1,378,000,000 acres are titles held by entities acting as a matter of privilege, and not right, and would thus subject to an artificial cost of ownership known as LVT, and the source of funding for government. Meanwhile, the people themselves are FREE - to pursue life, liberty, property and duty-free property in land, right up to their theoretical opportunity allotment limits.

 

[Roy L]

It's funny - all along I've never really been against LVT,

Lie. As you hate liberty (for everyone but yourself), justice and truth, you have no choice but to hate LVT. That is why you will tell any lie, no matter how preposterous, about what LVT proponents plainly say, and about the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, in order to deceive people into opposing the LVT that would make them free and prosperous.

It's just pure evil.

but more in strong defense of what I consider a much higher principle that I believe transcends LVT completely.

Religious belief is not an argument.

This principle is one that is either disregarded or only poorly considered at best by most LVT proponents,

Because it is provably objectively false.

who believe that the taxing mechanism will magically protect individual rights on its own.

Lie. The taxing mechanism is only one indisputably necessary aspect.

Note that in this post I am deliberately begging the propertarian question by referring to land in terms of ownership, and not a mere "holding" or other term.

Right, because fallacy is your only argument, and question-begging is at least so easy that even you can figure out how to do it.

That is because what I am proposing is ownership. Just not absolute, and not applicable to just any old entity that comes along. Also for the sake of this post, when I say "own" or "ownership", I mean as a matter of allodial title, but not the classical definition or usage, as the status would be inherent in the OWNER, NOT THE TITLE, NOT THE LAND ITSELF.

Gibberish.

So I'm jumping on the LVT bandwagon, albeit as a complete rogue who rejects ALL FORMER VERSIONS on principle, while embracing all of the parts I know for a fact are well-founded.

You know for a fact that all of it is well founded, as that has been proved to you many times.

So here's my Proviso, qualified addendum to Locke's, and my thoughts in a nutshell for a mechanism, in the form of an inalienable right, which would function extremely well alongside LVT as a single tax in what I would consider a truly free market -- to those who are truly free as a matter of right.

No, you're just going to tell some more stupid lies to rationalize landowner privilege.

THEORETICAL PER CAPITA LIMITS

Locke talked about what happens once a population grows. However, with any population there is ALREADY a limit to the amount of land everyone could, in theory, own. Because land is a requirement for life, and because I view the opportunity for duty-free sovereign ownership of land (along with the power to dispose of it) in that light,

See? You already told a stupid lie. It is indisputable that ownership of land and the power to dispose of it are NOT requirements for life, as they were inconceivable to our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors, who lived just fine without owning or disposing of land.

I'm identifying your stupid lies again, Steven. That's what I do. It's not fun, but it's a habit by now.

I also acknowledge the fact that land could be withheld from access by any number of entities or mechanisms, including rent-seeking monopolies (public or private), acting as barriers to entry for individuals.

My thought is that LVT could, and should, apply to those entities acting as barriers, without that mechanism providing a barrier to the individuals LVT is ostensibly purported to protect in the first place.

There is always going to be a barrier, because land is scarce and its supply is fixed.

As an example, the population of the US as of the latest census is currently around 313,735,000. The total land area privately owned is approximately 1,378,000,000 acres. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14j.pdf

That area divided by the total population comes out to 4.39 acres that are theoretically possible per individual to own. Federal lands included, the total area is roughly 2,264,000,000 acres, or 7.21 acres that are theoretically possible at this time for each person in the population to own.

Land is not fungible. While neighboring lands may have similar values, no two land parcels are exactly alike, and the value determinations for individuals will always vary for any number of reasons. Thus, where primary personal residential land is concerned, I disregard the idea that anyone has a right to access to land that is "just as much and as good" as what someone else already owns.

IOW, having realized that you intend to advocate wholesale, uncompensated violation of people's rights, you simply decide that you will not be thinking about other people's rights.

It doesn't matter.

So liberty, justice and truth do not matter... to you, that is.

Area, not value, is the opportunity floor anyone can attain and work with, duty free, and trade up or down from.

A preposterous lie. The opportunity represented by seven acres of mountainside in Alaska is the same as the opportunity presented by seven acres of prime retail space in NYC?? You again remind us of Voltaire's penetrating observation that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

No matter how you slice it, land area is fixed, while population is not. A ratio of land area to population could be used to determine an area amount (always transient) for which INDIVIDUALS (to the absolute exclusion of foreigners, corporations, collectives, or anyone acting as a matter of privilege) could be IMMUNE to LVT. Completely and absolutely. NOT "exempt", as a matter of market value, but immune, as a matter of area per individual.

Yakking brainlessly about area is the infallible indicator of the anti-LVT liar's cornered desperation.

If you're fortunate enough to have primary residential land in a city that grows up around you, in an area where the land increases in value, the land rents upon sale are your private windfall, which does not belong to neighbors, the community or anyone else.

So the landowner is privileged to take the value others have created. Check. I knew from the outset that that was the only real goal of your stupid lies.

Meanwhile, the majority of the now privately owned and controlled 1,378,000,000 acres are titles held by entities acting as a matter of privilege, and not right, and would thus subject to an artificial cost of ownership known as LVT, and the source of funding for government. Meanwhile, the people themselves are FREE - to pursue life, liberty, property and duty-free property in land, right up to their theoretical opportunity allotment limits.

Let me guess: you own seven acres of valuable land that you are not using for anything remotely close to its productive potential.

 

[Travlyr]

RoyL. - "Liar liar pants on fire."