What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[mczerone]

Who values the land? Isn't value subjective? Couldn't I make a profit from "unimproved" land, and couldn't I lose money by improving my land?

And if I improved my own homesteaded land, why do govt cronies get to take a cut of my efforts? Did they come and build irrigation channels and lay a cement foundation? If I didn't ask them to help in any way, where do they get off trying to create a duty for me to pay them?

 

[tremendoustie]

What makes it your land?

I would say having purchased it via voluntary agreement constitutes legitimate ownership, regardless of whether whoever owned it 300 years ago acquired it legitimately.


Obviously we can't fix all wrongdoing through history. Actually though, I'd even say the same thing on a shorter timescale. If you steal a TV set, then sell it to me (in a manner that would not lead a reasonable person to suspect that it's stolen), I think you're liable for the value of the TV set, to the victim of your theft, but I'm not obligated to simply give it back.

Of course, homesteading is a legitimate way to acquire land also, but it's not so common these days.

 

[erowe1]

I agree that most of the original land grants were illegitimate. However, it's not possible to correct all of the grievances of history, and I certainly don't see how taxing people's property has anything to do with justice at all.

It's best just to work for freedom starting now. Land ownership will balance out over time, and revert to those who really produce things their neighbors need, if the government is not there to prop up their corrupt buddies.

I would support opening up national forest to reasonable homesteading.

I agree that we shouldn't try to correct those past injustices. But I also don't think that methods of taxation and lack of available homestead land are entirely unrelated. I got the idea from Jefferson, who said it better than I could.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl41.htm

But again, none of this is to defend any tax over no taxes at all, just one tax versus another.

Edit: I guess that letter is kind of long. Here's the money quote:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.

 

[erowe1]

I would say having purchased it via voluntary agreement constitutes legitimate ownership, regardless of whether whoever owned it 300 years ago acquired it legitimately.

Practically, this might be the best way to go. But if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge through voluntary agreement, that wouldn't make it rightfully yours, since it's not mine to sell.

 

[Krugerrand]

Practically, this might be the best way to go. But if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge through voluntary agreement, that wouldn't make it rightfully yours, since it's not mine to sell.

How much do you want for it? j/k

The more I think about, the more I like poll taxes. If you want a government, when you vote is a great place to pony up.

 

[erowe1]

How much do you want for it? j/k

The more I think about, the more I like poll taxes. If you want a government, when you vote is a great place to pony up.

Actually, that's a good point. I forgot how much I preferred poll taxes to others. Being able to get out of taxes just by not voting, and letting those who pay taxes be the ones who vote on the representatives who decide how their own money gets spent, is probably as fair as any tax could be.

 

[loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by erowe1 What makes it your land?
The title of ownership does.

technically unless you have an allodial title you do not own the land.

 

[Dr.3D]

technically unless you have an allodial title you do not own the land.

Well, judging from history, technically, those who have the ability to defend the land from being taken from them own it.

 

[tremendoustie]

Actually, that's a good point. I forgot how much I preferred poll taxes to others. Being able to get out of taxes just by not voting, and letting those who pay taxes be the ones who vote on the representatives who decide how their own money gets spent, is probably as fair as any tax could be.

It's so fair, it could hardly be called a tax . More like a fee.

Of course, this only works if the government doesn't start trying to run the lives and property of people who didn't vote/consent ...

 

[tremendoustie]

Practically, this might be the best way to go. But if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge through voluntary agreement, that wouldn't make it rightfully yours, since it's not mine to sell.

That's certainly true. Brooklyn bridge is a bit different from a TV set, because physical possession is less practical -- also, the bridge is currently controlled by the government.

That said, suppose some private individual built Brooklyn bridge, but you, as the biggest baddest guy in NY (perhaps the government), manage to send men over to take it over and start charging tolls. A couple months later, I show up as a rich immigrant in NY, with no clue about this history. You then "sell" it to me for a fair price.

I'd say you owe the original builder of the bridge full damages, but I get to keep the bridge. Alternately, you might return the money to me (along with extra $ for the inconvenience), and I return the bridge to the original owner.

Regardless, I do have a legitimate claim on the property at that point. Simply taking it from me and giving it back to the original victim of the theft would not be justice.

 

[spacehabitats]

I take George's idea even further. I think there should be a flat tax on wealth itself. This to me, after all I've looked at, seems to me the most fair. You could tax people on their average daily/monthly/yearly net worth. This would allow a flat percentage to be taken from everyone equally and wouldn't be a burden on the lower class any more than the upper class and producers.

The only problem with this is the difficulty in enforcing fairly. Perhaps we could just start with measuring real property/assets and also on your average daily bank balance.

I agree. I believe that the Income Tax was designed to avoid a WEALTH tax which would have been the fairest tax. In fact, most Americans thought that they were getting a de facto tax on wealth. Initially, only the richest Americans were going to be taxed and at a very low rate.
The Conspiracy that established the Federal Reserve System recognized that there would be many ways for the wealthy and politically well-connected to avoid paying an INCOME tax, and history has born this out.

The problem with collecting on a wealth tax could be solved by making the individual estimate their net worth and agreeing to sell their property to anyone willing to come up with the cash.

 

[wizardwatson]

I agree. I believe that the Income Tax was designed to avoid a WEALTH tax which would have been the fairest tax. In fact, most Americans thought that they were getting a de facto tax on wealth. Initially, only the richest Americans were going to be taxed and at a very low rate.
The Conspiracy that established the Federal Reserve System recognized that there would be many ways for the wealthy and politically well-connected to avoid paying an INCOME tax, and history has born this out.

The problem with collecting on a wealth tax could be solved by making the individual estimate their net worth and agreeing to sell their property to anyone willing to come up with the cash.

Income was originally an accounting term related to corporations/businesses. The term for personal 'income' was always 'wages', not 'income'. So some claim that this was part of the 'sleight of hand' used to pass the income tax legislation. People I don't think ever thought that 'wages' would be taxed.

And the tax on wages is really a tax on revenue. An individual doesn't enjoy the rights of businesses in being allowed to deduct expenses as corporations/businesses can. If businesses had to pay a 'revenue' tax the way wages are taxed it'd be a different story.

 

[spacehabitats]

A wealth tax could be fair.

Arguing about government ownership is a red herring. The only thing that allows a multi-billionaire to acquire such wealth is a state with laws, police, courts, and armies to support their claims to ownership. The idea that Bill Gates should pay no more in taxes than a pauper is absurd and everyone knows this.

Bill could TRY to protect his property from the starving masses using a private security force. And it would probably work too, until his chief of security decided to take Bill's place.

Government at its best is a mutual insurance company allowing sovereign citizens the opportunity of living in a stable society where everyone is not spending a huge percentage of their time and resources just protecting their life and property.

Even if every human life is of equal value, their property certainly isn't, and it takes proportionately more to protect the "rights" of the rich.

What's so hard about this concept?

 

[FortisKID]

I've read Progress and Poverty and I think George's reasoning is sound. It's a tax on rent which, if you understand the Law of Rent, I think is much more fair than some sort of flat sales tax. A sales tax punishes the consumer more than the producer.

I take George's idea even further. I think there should be a flat tax on wealth itself. This to me, after all I've looked at, seems to me the most fair. You could tax people on their average daily/monthly/yearly net worth. This would allow a flat percentage to be taken from everyone equally and wouldn't be a burden on the lower class any more than the upper class and producers.

The only problem with this is the difficulty in enforcing fairly. Perhaps we could just start with measuring real property/assets and also on your average daily bank balance.

I've said this elsewhere on the boards and many disagree saying that you shouldn't get taxed on what you already own, so they think a flat sales tax or import tax or whatever is more fair. I disagree.

...... And you support Ron Paul?

 

[wizardwatson]

...... And you support Ron Paul?

You have a better option?

Of course the government taxes too much, the question is what would be the most fair. Is the Georgist idea more fair than the current system? I think it is. You can be a purist all day long and say taxation = theft but that doesn't solve the problem of creating/supporting a fair tax system.

 

[LibForestPaul]

No, I dislike money stolen from me to pay for services that I do not use, have not requested, are not authorized by the constitution, and which goes to connected cronies and pay-offs of corrupt public and private unions.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Again taxes = dead horse
Spending ,Violence and involuntary servitude = what needs to be focused upon.

 

[Zippyjuan]

My state (CA) property taxes include two numbers- one for the value of the land and the second value of "improvements". Taxes on the estimated value of something are in my opinon wrong because a person does not actually realize any increased "value" of their land. You only get that when you sell the property. In some places, that can mean that people lose their property because somebody bought the neigobor's property for some significantly higher value. Kind of like you getting taxed on the price of gold going up- even if you didn't actually sell your gold and get those profits. That is why I am glad that California limits the increases in property taxes until it is actually sold and a new title (and basis) issued.

 

[redbluepill]

Milton Friedman once said "the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago"

I go a step further and say that the land value tax isn't just the 'least bad tax' it is actually a good 'tax'. I say 'tax' because I believe it isn't really a tax, it is rent for the privilege of monopolizing a piece of land and keep others from using it.

Let me ask this question to those who are for the monopolization of land: How is property created?

 

[redbluepill]

The title of ownership does.

Where does that title of ownership come from?