We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[EcoWarrier]

That's precisely how the income tax got it's nasty foot in the door.

Income Tax was a temporary tax introduced by the British Tory government to fund the Napoleonic wars. Prior, taxes came from land. In 1692 Parliament introduced a national land tax. This tax was levied on rental values and applied both to rural and to urban land. No provision was made for re-assessing the 1692 valuations and consequently they remained in force well into the 18th century.

The Tory Party were the party of landowners. The saw the opportunity to push taxation from their lucrative acres to to working, productive people via income tax. They had the thin edge of the wedge in and and rammed it in gently over 100 years to the point little taxation was coming from land. As a result the richest people in the UK are landowners living on unearned income. Clear theft.

 

[EcoWarrier]

You make no sense. Markets under control of the State is not a free-market.

You are confused. A free-market is not under the control of the state.

< snip wayward imagineering >

 

[osan]

Originally Posted by Travlyr
You make no sense. Markets under control of the State is not a free-market.

You are confused. A free-market is not under the control of the state.

I surely hope you have a severe substance abuse problem because it would sadden me to no end to think you were this cognitively handicapped. Go back and read the part I made bold, italicized, and underlined. Then read what you wrote.

HELLO.

 

[Len Larson]

Ah yes, the LVT civilization construction set.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The only way to build a truely Utopian Society.

 

[Roy L]

Ah yes, the LVT civilization construction set.

It has been used successfully many times.

 

[Roy L]

What you really need to answer, which has been asked many, many times, is what is so special about land value tax, rather than air value tax, and water value tax?

What you have been told many, many times, but always baldly refuse to know, is that the owner of land, but not of air or water, is empowered to charge others full market value for the services and infrastructure government spends its tax revenue to provide. This is because ownership of land -- i.e., locations on the earth's solid surface -- confers the advantage of proximity to those services and infrastructure. Therefore, to the extent that they buy things people are willing to pay for, all taxes that are spent on services and infrastructure are being given to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway. It is the landowner and the landowner alone who benefits from and GETS TO POCKET taxes. There is no way to run public spending that does not subsidize the landowner. That is a law of economics.

You just permanently refuse to know that fact.

When does the taxation end?

When all the public services and infrastructure have been paid for.

And who benefits from the "tax"?

The landholder, of course. He always gets all the benefit of government spending that isn't wasteful or corrupt. That is why he should rightly pay for it.

However, you have decided to devote your life to serving greed, parasitism and evil; so you will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER to prevent that fact from entering your brain. There is no amount of fact or logic or evidence or proof that can ever force it into your skull. It is permanently impossible.

 

[Roy L]

And you trust your government leaders to be honest & fair with their redistribution to all members of the community? Why? Have they ever?

Of course we don't "trust" them. We hold them accountable for performance of their jobs, like any other employee. Duh.

Do you actually know how to do anything but shriek, "meeza hatesa gubmint"?

 

[Roy L]

Ron Paul was a staunch supporter of N.D.'s Measure 2, which would have eliminated all property taxes, including the land value tax component thereof. There is no way in hell that Ron Paul would EVER support a Land Value Tax.

As he is quite intelligent, he might well support LVT if he is more willing to know facts than you are.

Section 4 of Ron Paul's Liberty Amendment reads: SOURCE
And you can rest assured that by "estates", he meant that to include all privately owned wealth, including privately owned land.

No, you are just lying again, as usual. By "estates" he indisputably meant the property of deceased persons under legal administration by executors or other trustees, and you know that fact very well.

Ron Paul believes that both land and money are different forms of capital, and would NEVER support any form of Land Socialism or "reclaiming socially created wealth for the collectivist land rental commune".

Whom are you dishonestly pretending to be quoting when you put a stupid lie like, "collectivist land rental commune" in quotes?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What you have been told many, many times, but always baldly refuse to know, is that the owner of land, but not of air or water, is empowered to charge others full market value for the services and infrastructure government spends its tax revenue to provide. This is because ownership of land -- i.e., locations on the earth's solid surface -- confers the advantage of proximity to those services and infrastructure. Therefore, to the extent that they buy things people are willing to pay for, all taxes that are spent on services and infrastructure are being given to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway. It is the landowner and the landowner alone who benefits from and GETS TO POCKET taxes. There is no way to run public spending that does not subsidize the landowner. That is a law of economics.

Here you're very much mistaken-especially in regards to desert areas. Parts of major rivers (i.e. the Salt River) are privately owned for the use of power companies. There is a quite elaborate system for ownership of rights to certain parts of major rivers. Owners of rights to these rivers in turn charge customers for power produced by the companies' use of the river. (IOW, this is a sort of "rent seeking" system) I encourage you to move beyond what you think you know and examine the real world.

 

[Roy L]

Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations. This irrefutable fact escapes nearly every human being walking the earth this day. There is NO SUCH THING as "government" as the belief, concept, and notion most commonly held in the minds of people. It has no substance whatsoever. Zero. Yet, people speak of it and regard it in their minds as if it had an existence independent of humanity. Remove people and where shall one find government? Nowhere, because it exists ONLY within the confines of our skulls and NOWHERE else at any time, under any circumstance, for any reason, by any cause whatsoever. It is fiction. It is bullshit. It is an outright lie.

More of the absurdities intended to enable atrocities.

A landlord is not government.

True: landlords don't have to maintain legitimacy or be responsible to the people they take money from.

What you write tacitly presupposes several things. Firstly, it implies that private contracts are invalid.

Stupid lie. Duress invalidates the contracts made under duress, not all contracts.

Secondly, it implies that private property is invalid.

Stupid lie. Pointing out the fact that private property in land is invalid does not imply that private property is invalid, any more than pointing out that private property in slaves is invalid implies that private property is invalid.

Thirdly, it implies that any person ostensibly in ownership of real property is evil.

Stupid lie. Slavery is evil, but that does not mean every slave owner is evil.

Fourthly, it implies that any such a person promotes himself to a status of even greater evil for having not only the temerity to charge rent to another for making some use of that property, but that he dares to place conditions upon the renter such that his property is not brought to destruction or other harm.

Strawman fallacy.

Fifthly: it implies that there are people "out there" somewhere holding the authority to determine HOW MUCH property any given person may hold and that they hold it at the pleasure of others, further assassinating the notion of private property.

Stupid lie. The question at issue is not "how much" property a person can own, but "what kinds" of things can rightly be property.

Those are the very direct implications of what you have written, above.

Stupid lie.

You are no friend of liberty.

You are an enemy not only of liberty but of justice and truth, as proved above.

Quite the opposite, judging by this embarrassingly flawed diatribe of yours.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

http://libertythinkers.com/educatio...rnment-the-libertarian-basis-for-land-rights/
EDIT cont.: This page chokes to death on its own fail in the very first paragraph. The author was perhaps an idiot? At best, he had less than zero understanding of that which constitutes proper liberty. The article is poorly reasoned and builds upon rotten assumptions.

Anti-truth fail.

Landlords are already limited.

Everything is limited -- except, of course, the stupidity, dishonesty and iniquity of evil, lying, anti-LVT filth.

It is called "criminal law" as well as the laws of contracts. If you do not like the conditions a landlord places upon your living in his house, then go elsewhere. You are not entitled to reside there.

You know that trying to change the subject from land to houses is dishonest, but you did it anyway.

And all the nonsense about "per capita value" and the three conditions... Jesus, what stupidity. His conflation of of Spooner's valid and correct observations about government with that of the landlord is precious in its cute idiocy. If this is the sort of bullshit to which you subscribe, knock yourself out, but you would be far happier at http://revleft.com I recommend you go find yourself a comfy home there.

Content = 0.

Good intentions count for nothing whatsoever when the results imposed upon others against their wills are rotten.

Landowning is precisely such a result imposed upon others against their wills.

The moment you elevate a subset of a population above the rest, absolutely anything may result.

As landowning has done throughout history.

The act itself - nay the mere ascent to it opens the door wide in principle for tyranny of any form and degree you may care to name.

The act of landowning does. And has. Right.

Landowning is theft; purely; simply, absolutely.

There. Fixed it for you.

You are arguing for your flavor of pretty slavery.

No, you are, as already proved multiple times.

Fail.

Epically.

Catastrophically.

Terminally.

Mirror time.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations.

So all that administraion all over the world is an illusion. Boy......

< snip tht rest as it is pure childish drivel >

 

[EcoWarrier]

What you have been told many, many times, but always baldly refuse to know, is that the owner of land, but not of air or water, is empowered to charge others full market value for the services and infrastructure government spends its tax revenue to provide. This is because ownership of land -- i.e., locations on the earth's solid surface -- confers the advantage of proximity to those services and infrastructure. Therefore, to the extent that they buy things people are willing to pay for, all taxes that are spent on services and infrastructure are being given to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway. It is the landowner and the landowner alone who benefits from and GETS TO POCKET taxes. There is no way to run public spending that does not subsidize the landowner. That is a law of economics.

You just permanently refuse to know that fact.

When all the public services and infrastructure have been paid for.

The landholder, of course. He always gets all the benefit of government spending that isn't wasteful or corrupt. That is why he should rightly pay for it.

Nicely put.

However, you have decided to devote your life to serving greed, parasitism and evil; so you will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER to prevent that fact from entering your brain. There is no amount of fact or logic or evidence or proof that can ever force it into your skull. It is permanently impossible.

Roy has highlighted the conditioning of greed in our societies. It runs so deep many tell themselves lies and believe them thinking they may at one point get a parasitical major financial gain somewhere and not work hard, or at all.

They should be more concerned with something productive and having a system in place they encourages productiveness and eliminates parasitical activities.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Here you're very much mistaken-especially in regards to desert areas. Parts of major rivers (i.e. the Salt River) are privately owned for the use of power companies. There is a quite elaborate system for ownership of rights to certain parts of major rivers. Owners of rights to these rivers in turn charge customers for power produced by the companies' use of the river. (IOW, this is a sort of "rent seeking" system) I encourage you to move beyond what you think you know and examine the real world.

You are in La-La world then. If power companies get the rights to certain parts of rivers (we own the rivers which is common wealth) then they pay a fee for using that common resouce. Simple. That is the real world.

 

[Steven Douglas]

No, you are just lying again, as usual. By "estates" he indisputably meant the property of deceased persons under legal administration by executors or other trustees, and you know that fact very well.

Even you can't be that daft, that obtuse, Roy. It's obvious that you saw the word "estate" and immediately thought "estate tax", the commonly used term that deals specifically with taxes on the property of deceased persons. An estate however, is nothing more or less than the net worth of a person (dead or alive) at any point in time; the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests, obligations and entitlements to property of any kind (including land).

Living people have estates, and while the "Estate Tax" was definitely included in Ron Paul's amendment proposal, it was not limited thereto. You should know that.

Whom are you dishonestly pretending to be quoting when you put a stupid lie like, "collectivist land rental commune" in quotes?

Just paraphrasing for clarity, since it is the very essence of what you're seeking. All land is subject to rent, by, for and in the name the just compensation to collectivized individuals, making any LVT regime, in essence, a collectivist land rental commune.

Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations.

So all that administraion all over the world is an illusion. Boy......

Hey, pay attention at the front! You missed the brightly colored block he put in front of you labeled GOVERNANCE (as distinguished from "government"), which he explained clearly enough for any child, but not anyone childishly snipping and full of information drivel, to understand.

(Told you all if it anything didn't resemble one of his familiar Fisher Price toys he'd go all "Uh-oh! V.E.R.N. Vern!" on us.)

 

[Roy L]

Here you're very much mistaken-especially in regards to desert areas.

No, I am of course objectively correct, as usual.

Parts of major rivers (i.e. the Salt River) are privately owned for the use of power companies. There is a quite elaborate system for ownership of rights to certain parts of major rivers. Owners of rights to these rivers in turn charge customers for power produced by the companies' use of the river. (IOW, this is a sort of "rent seeking" system) I encourage you to move beyond what you think you know and examine the real world.

Please explain how you erroneously imagine that contradicts what I wrote.

 

[Roy L]

Even you can't be that daft, that obtuse, Roy.

You lied, Steven. I knew you would -- you have to -- and you did.

And now you are trying to divert attention from that fact with a spew of stupid, dishonest filth.

It's obvious that you saw the word "estate" and immediately thought "estate tax", the commonly used term that deals specifically with taxes on the property of deceased persons.

And I was correct, because the amendment you quoted was ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAXES.

An estate however, is nothing more or less than the net worth of a person (dead or alive) at any point in time; the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests, obligations and entitlements to property of any kind (including land).

Blatant -- and grotesquely, sickeningly dishonest -- equivocation fallacy. YOU KNOW that in the context of the quote, "estate" meant the property interests of deceased persons as have been subject to taxation.

Living people have estates, and while the "Estate Tax" was definitely included in Ron Paul's amendment proposal, it was not limited thereto.

Yes, of course it was, stop lying. The amendment was specifically to remove the specified taxes.

You should know that.

I know that you are lying. Stop lying.

Just paraphrasing for clarity,

No, you were deliberately lying, as usual.

since it is the very essence of what you're seeking.

No, that is just another stupid lie from you about what I have plainly written.

All you do is think up the stupidest and most dishonest lie you can imagine, and then post it. And then to rescue your lies, you think up even stupider and more dishonest lies.

All land is subject to rent,

No, only land that more than one person is willing to pay to use.

You really can't write even a single honest, factual sentence on this topic, can you?

by, for and in the name the just compensation to collectivized individuals,

Blatant oxymoron.

making any LVT regime, in essence, a collectivist land rental commune.

No, that is just you telling another stupid, evil lie. LVT is no more "collectivist" than any tax a society might use to fund its government, and a society that does so is no more a "commune" than any society whose members are aware of the responsibilities associated with living in society.

Some evil, lying sacks of $#!+ are so despicably, sickeningly dishonest that they pretend not to be aware of the responsibilities associated with living in society. But LVT advocates, being honest, are not among them.

 

[Steven Douglas]

OK, so all land, including privately owned land, is considered "commonwealth", which belongs to everyone (but only collectively). Other scarce resources, like ore, fossil fuels, water, and even bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum, would also be considered common wealth, and part of the definition of "land" subject to a Land Value Tax.

Under LVT, the state, or taxing jurisdiction, behaves as a for-profit, profit-maximizing land-owning corporation, which is in the business of renting out titles to parcels of land within its jurisdiction. Every individual citizen is considered an equal shareholder (of a single share which may not be bought or sold) of this incorporated entity. LVT rental fees (LVT levied) which are paid to the state are said to recapture "community created value", or economic land rents, which are collected by the state on behalf of the everyone -- collectively only -- in the community.

The Universal Individual Exemption (if actually provided for), would be considered a Community Shareholder Privilege - a mechanism for providing "just compensation" that is owed to each individual who has been deprived of their natural liberty rights to use land which they are excluded from using in common. The Universal Individual Exemption acts as an LVT Credit, which each individual can apply toward any land, but which is sufficient in itself for "enough good land to live on". Also, like any corporation, dividends might also be paid out directly to community shareholders from the land rent profits.

Sounds like a Collectivist Land Rental Commune to me. A socialistic monopolistic racket.

 

[EcoWarrier]

OK, so all land, including privately owned land, is considered "commonwealth", which belongs to everyone (but only collectively). Other scarce resources, like ore, fossil fuels, water, and even bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum, would also be considered common wealth, and part of the definition of "land" subject to a Land Value Tax.

You are sort of there. The collectivist bit is off mark though.

Under LVT, the state, or taxing jurisdiction, behaves as a mechanism to reclaim commonly created wealth to fund common services.

LVT rental fees (LVT levied) which are paid to the state are said to recapture "community created value", or economic land rents, which are collected by the state on behalf of the everyone -- collectively only -- in the community.

You are sort of there. The collectivist bit is off mark though.

Sounds like a Collectivist Land Rental Commune to me. A socialistic monopolistic racket.

Steven after I thought you were doing so well, you write such drivel. What a disappointment.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Sounds like a Collectivist Land Rental Commune to me. A socialistic monopolistic racket.

The rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind.

Collecting tax a socialistic racket? Wow. We must have a very Marxist government in power right now then. Wow. I never knew that.