What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[eduardo89]

Quote? Of course not.

Eduardo, you brought your family into the discussion, not me, by effectively claiming that because your family had owned a lot of land in Mexico, landowning could not possibly be parasitism or a vehicle of choice for the greedy, privileged, evil, etc. The fact that your family owned a lot of land in Mexico is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether landowning is an example of greed, privilege, evil and parasitism -- which I have proved it is.

Nonsense. Your family's past, circumstances, how they gained land, etc. is no more relevant to whether landowning is greedy, evil, privileged parasitism than a slave owning family's past, circumstances, how they gained slaves, etc. is relevant to whether slave owning is greedy, evil, privileged parasitism.

Mods' decisions cannot alter facts.

I never claimed that because my family owned land that it could not possibly be parasitic. You're just flat out lying. You were praising a socialist, neopotistic, authoritarian ex-president of Mexico. A man who had no respect for property rights, liberty or the rule of law, who personally invited Leon Trotsky to live in Mexico...and you said he as a good president. You know absolutely nothing about what you talk about and it's so blatantly obvious to anyone who reads even a single sentence of any of your posts. What I said in that thread was that he was a despot, who stole from hundreds of thousands of people, including my family.

And you have not proven even one bit that owning land is anything comparable to owning slaves. The fact that not a single person here remotely agrees with you is testament to the idiocy of your premise.

 

[Roy L]

Yes, but that doesn't make LVT good or necessary.

Yes, it DOES make it good, though obviously not "necessary."

America did fine without direct taxes for a good long time.

That's flatly false. There has never been a time when direct taxes were not a substantial source of public revenue in the USA at the sate and local levels. For almost all of its history, the USA has obtained more public revenue from land than almost any other country, and it still does.

It could still do so if people like you would just donate to the treasury instead of waxing endlessly about this and that.

Laughable.

Nope. All taxes are a burden on economic activity.

Nope. That's just pure economic ignorance on your part. Google, "excess burden of taxation" and start reading. A tax on economic rent CANNOT burden economic activity because economic activity does not affect the tax liability.

"Reallocation" is just newspeak for taking money out of the economy. You have to take money out to reallocate it.

HUH?? Flat wrong. Reallocating it indisputably doesn't take it out. Hello? If I reallocate a chair from the living room to the basement, it doesn't take the chair out of the house. If government taxes people and spends the money on transfers like SS, it doesn't remove any money from the economy. It's just different people spending the same money.

False. You are the ignorant one here.

ROTFL!! I have read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation. Can you say the same? The answer is unfortunately all too obvious. I know incomparably more about those subjects than anyone else posting in this thread, I promise you.

The IRS already has a program for "patriotic donations".

That you would consider that program relevant to the issue of funding public goods is merely the measure of your economic ignorance.

If you really believe what you say, you ought to be promoting that program instead of demanding an LVT. If people think it's in their self interest to fund "public goods", they'll do it, just as they fund NPR.

Nope. That's just anti-economic nonsense. It's not like nobody ever thought about this stuff before, you know.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

ROTFL!! I have read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation. Can you say the same? The answer is unfortunately all too obvious.

No, but since you learned nothing of value, you wasted your time. You should demand a refund from your professors. (that's an appeal to authority, btw. You should take some logic classes, too)

 

[Roy L]

I never claimed that because my family owned land that it could not possibly be parasitic. You're just flat out lying.

In post #10 of that thread, you said, "My family lost thousands of acres because of him, we were never compensated and it was never given back." The clear implication is that your family should have been compensated or got the land back, which could only be because it was NOT parasitic.

You were praising a socialist, neopotistic, authoritarian ex-president of Mexico.

No, I identified the fact that despite his nepotism, socialism and authoritarianism, his program of land reform -- abolishing the feudal hacienda system by which YOU ADMITTED your family benefited -- was an economic success story.

A man who had no respect for property rights, liberty or the rule of law, who personally invited Leon Trotsky to live in Mexico...and you said he as a good president.

Well, he was better than his predecessors and successors, anyway, as the record shows.

You know absolutely nothing about what you talk about and it's so blatantly obvious to anyone who reads even a single sentence of any of your posts.

Rubbish. Unlike you, I provided a quote and a reference to support my statements.

What I said in that thread was that he was a despot, who stole from hundreds of thousands of people, including my family.

But as we have already established by the example of the bandit in the pass, those hundreds of thousands of people were THEMSELVES stealing from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use the land.

And you have not proven even one bit that owning land is anything comparable to owning slaves.

Yes, of course I have. And here is more proof:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.
Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.

The fact that not a single person here remotely agrees with you is testament to the idiocy of your premise.

redbluepill and a few others have indicated they DO broadly agree with me (not about everything, of course). But facts are not determined by voting.

 

[Roy L]

No, but since you learned nothing of value, you wasted your time.

<yawn>

You should demand a refund from your professors.

I agree good books are more informative than bad professors.

(that's an appeal to authority, btw.

No, it is not.

You should take some logic classes, too)

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

I have taken logic classes, sunshine. A lot more than you (if you have ever taken one at all, which I doubt), and it was at the senior level at an internationally respected university. That's one reason I am always able to demolish you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.
Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.

He was actually in the war and believed it was just about slavery? Not a reliable source, sir. We know from numerous historical documents from both sides of the war that this isn't true.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. (you appealed to your own authority rather than using logic, a variation on the appeal to authority fallacy)

ROTFL!! As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
I have taken logic classes, sunshine. A lot more than you, and at the senior level at an internationally respected university. That's one reason I am always able to demolish you.

1) you should demand a refund from whoever maleducated you in logic (you apparently don't realize that the education system routinely produces functional illiterates, even at the college level-rending degrees worthless in proving knowledge or intelligence) 2) You've never demolished me. Claiming it over and over will never make it true. Hit the logic books again, sir.

 

[Steven Douglas]

"How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery.
We get labor cheaper now than when we owned
the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in
the shape of rents they take more of the labor of
the negro than they could under slavery, for then
they were compelled to return him sufficient food,
clothing and medical attendance to keep him well,
and were compelled by conscience and public opinion,
as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer
work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when
they have got all the work out of him they can."

- Told to Henry George by George M. Jackson, who heard it from a former slave owned by his father, who overheard it from plantation owners (who said it within the hearing of a former slave), which former slave was then able to articulate it in a way that just happened to align perfectly with Henry George's theories.

Eerie, idnit?

::: sniff ::: I just love True Testimonials, don't you? Why, so plausible, too. Not difficult at all to imagine post-war southern plantation owners, standing around slapping themselves in the forehead for fighting a civil war, which of course was within their power to stop, and which they all knew was all about slavery - even though the northern slaves weren't freed, and in some places not until long after the war was over - had they only known how much better it would be for them afterward.

 

[Roy L]

He was actually in the war and believed it was just about slavery?

No, that's just another fabrication on your part. We have no idea what he thought the war was about. He was merely reporting the fact, repeat, FACT that the "freed" slaves were actually WORSE OFF having to pay private landowners for the opportunity to exercise their liberty to use land than they had been as ACTUAL SLAVES.

Not a reliable source, sir.

More reliable than any source you have ever given, sir.

We know from numerous historical documents from both sides of the war that this isn't true.

And on your planet, that might not even be a red herring attempt to change the subject.

 

[Roy L]

You have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. So you post something stupid and irrelevant. Simple.

 

[Steven Douglas]

He was merely reporting the fact, repeat, FACT that the "freed" slaves were actually WORSE OFF having to pay private landowners for the opportunity to exercise their liberty to use land than they had been as ACTUAL SLAVES.

Do you even know what a fact is, Roy? He wasn't reporting a fact. He was reporting hearsay of hearsay which alleged that a SINGLE former slave claimed, as a matter of personal opinion that he was better off being a slave because of rent!

Too bad home ownership wasn't within his grasp. He would have been freed from nasty rents, and could have pissed off Henry George and a future Roy L. at the same time.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Oh, and just in case you didn't see it:

<sigh> You mention some government activities that can take WEALTH out of the economy -- a more important example of which, btw, is taxes on production and exchange, of which LVT is not an example -- but that is different from taking MONEY out of the economy. If government takes tax money and burns it, that takes money out of the economy, but not wealth. If government takes tax money and pays people to break windows, that takes wealth out of the economy, but not money.

Capisci?

Well, you are the one I was told to thank for schooling me in economics, Roy. So school me on this: you don't capisci that outright subsidies to foreign governments count as both wealth and money? Or did I miss something? I didn't go to economics school, I was sick that day.

Also, you're right! It's not an LVT example. What if ::: gasp ::: an LVT wasn't thought to be enough to do all the wonderful things we do now. Do you think government might...oh, I don't know, want to explore the possibility of ... wait for it ... additional revenue streams? You know, so that we could "get more things done"?

I hear tell Hong Kong has a 15% income tax on people making over around $16K (120,000 HKD) per year. You don't suppose that could happen here if we adopted an LVT, do you? You know, on the idea that businesses can't do everything, and that the people themselves might want to start shouldering 'their fair share' as well? I don't know, just a thought, wondering if that is possible, or if the Henry George Theorem made such a thing impossible.

Are there any examples of different tiers, levels and classes of taxes, even in a country where a single tax might have once been considered more than sufficient?

School me, Roy.

 

[Roy L]

Yes, it is.

No, you are just proving that you are either ignorant of logic or lying (my money is on both). You claimed I was the ignorant one here. Identifying the proof that I know more of the subject than you is not an appeal to authority fallacy because it is not adduced in support of any argument, but merely to refute YOUR false claim ABOUT ME.

(you appealed to your own authority rather than using logic, a variation on the appeal to authority fallacy)

No, that just proves you are ignorant of logic. When you changed the subject by claiming I was ignorant, all evidence that I am not ignorant becomes valid to refute your claim. It is NOT an appeal to authority to demonstrate that someone who is claimed not to be an authority actually is one. You just don't know enough logic to understand how fallacious everything you say is.

1) you should demand a refund from whoever maleducated you in logic (you apparently don't realize that the education system routinely produces functional illiterates, even at the college level-rending degrees worthless in proving knowledge or intelligence)

I am quite well educated in logic which is why I am always able to demolish you.

2) You've never demolished me.

I have, you know it, and I have done it again in this post, proving that you can't even accurately identify an appeal to authority fallacy.

Claiming it over and over will never make it true.

Denying it over and over again can never make it false.

Hit the logic books again, sir.

<yawn> I just proved you don't even know how to identify an appeal to authority fallacy. I would tell you to hit the logic books again, sir, but it is painfully obvious that you have never cracked one. Or, in all likelihood, seen one. Ever.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, you are just proving that you are either ignorant of logic or lying (my money is on both). You claimed I was the ignorant one here. Identifying the proof that I know more of the subject than you is not an appeal to authority fallacy because it is not adduced in support of any argument, but merely to refute YOUR false claim ABOUT ME.

No, that just proves you are ignorant of logic. When you changed the subject by claiming I was ignorant, all evidence that I am not ignorant becomes valid to refute your claim. It is NOT an appeal to authority to demonstrate that someone who is claimed not to be an authority actually is one. You just don't know enough logic to understand how fallacious everything you say is.

I am quite well educated in logic which is why I am always able to demolish you.

I have, you know it, and I have done it again in this post, proving that you can't even accurately identify an appeal to authority fallacy.

Denying it over and over again can never make it false.

<yawn> I just proved you don't even know how to identify an appeal to authority fallacy. I would tell you to hit the logic books again, sir, but it is painfully obvious that you have never cracked one. Or, in all likelihood, seen one. Ever.

Your whole argument hinges on claiming that I alleged you used the appeal to authority. I didn't. I called it a variation on the ATA fallacy. Hit the books, Roy. You keep on failing. All that fancy schoolin' you got gave you plenty in the way of theory, but nothing valuable in practice. As I said before, whoever taught you this nonsense you keep spouting owes you a refund for mal-educating you. Go get it-unless you want to continue amusing me by falling on your face.

 

[Jtorsella]

I didn't read this entire thread, but whoever doesn't believe in property rights has no understanding of positive versus negative rights. Property is a negative right; To respect this right, I only mustn't interfere with it. Other rights like medicare or welfare are positive rights, meaning I must provide a service to respect them. In a perfect world, property laws would be unnecessary as everyone would respect each others' negative rights. This doesn't happen, though, and government must protect each of our negative rights from infringement by force. A person who opposes property rights can use the same argument to oppose laws against murder. Government MUST, as its single duty, protect our negative rights, property being among them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't read this entire thread, but whoever doesn't believe in property rights has no understanding of positive versus negative rights. Property is a negative right; To respect this right, I only mustn't interfere with it. Other rights like medicare or welfare are positive rights, meaning I must provide a service to respect them. In a perfect world, property laws would be unnecessary as everyone would respect each others' negative rights. This doesn't happen, though, and government must protect each of our negative rights from infringement by force. A person who opposes property rights can use the same argument to oppose laws against murder. Government MUST, as its single duty, protect our negative rights, property being among them.

Excellent point.

 

[Roy L]

Do you even know what a fact is, Roy? He wasn't reporting a fact.

Yes, he was. It was merely a fact that you refuse to know, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false, vicious, and evil.

He was reporting hearsay of hearsay

That's a bald falsehood.

which alleged that a SINGLE former slave claimed, as a matter of personal opinion that he was better off being a slave because of rent!

Wrong AGAIN. Black poverty even more oppressive than slavery was a commonly reported phenomenon in the South after the Civil War. That was just one report that happened to put two and two together. And contrary to your fabrication, it was not the former slave who put two and two together and identified rent as the culprit but his owner's son.

Too bad home ownership wasn't within his grasp.

Yeah, and too bad he couldn't have owned some folks. That would certainly have improved his situation....

He would have been freed from nasty rents,

At the expense of paying all the future rent in advance, and of forcing others to pay rent for what government, the community and nature provide...

and could have pissed off Henry George and a future Roy L. at the same time.

Have you watched, "Judgment at Nuremberg" yet, Steven? It has a lesson for you about how people acquiesce in -- and even aid and abet -- monstrous evil by refusing to know what they know.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Have you watched, "Judgment at Nuremberg" yet, Steven? It has a lesson for you about how people acquiesce in -- and even aid and abet -- monstrous evil by refusing to know what they know.

You ought to reflect on that.

 

[Roy L]

I didn't read this entire thread,

That at least explains why you don't know what you are talking about.

but whoever doesn't believe in property rights

There is no one here who doesn't believe in property rights. See? Shoulda read the entire thread.

has no understanding of positive versus negative rights.

I predict that you will now demonstrate that YOU have no understanding of positive versus negative rights.

Property is a negative right;

Property in land is NOT a negative right, as it compels the landless to labor in the service of landowners or die. It is in fact not a right at all (other than legally, as property in slaves was once a right), because it inherently violates the natural rights to life and liberty -- which ARE genuine negative rights -- of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

Casting property in land as a negative right leads to absurdity: suppose someone had a property deed to the earth's atmosphere. The propertarian may claim this is a "negative right" because all it requires from others is inaction: i.e., not breathing. But such claims are clearly absurd, outrageous and dishonest. A property "right" in the earth's atmosphere self-evidently enslaves the entire population of the earth. To claim this is somehow a "negative right" is just despicably dishonest.

From the above it should be easy enough to see that property in land, like property in the earth's atmosphere, cannot correctly be considered a negative right because though it requires only "inaction" of others that requirement of inaction is itself a removal of their rights.

To respect this right, I only mustn't interfere with it.

Wrong. Property in land inherently interferes with others' negative rights to life and liberty, and therefore cannot itself be a negative right. See above.

Other rights like medicare or welfare are positive rights, meaning I must provide a service to respect them.

Wrong. Positive rights are just rights that oblige someone to do something, as the positive legal right of property in land requires others to go elsewhere and live other than as they wish.

See? I told you you would prove you don't understand positive and negative rights.

In a perfect world, property laws would be unnecessary as everyone would respect each others' negative rights.

LOL! And you'd own the atmosphere, which everyone would pay you rent for using...? Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

This doesn't happen, though, and government must protect each of our negative rights from infringement by force.

But government unfortunately pretends not to understand that it is the landowner who is infringing rights by force, just as in centuries past it pretended not to know it was the slave owner infringing rights by force.

A person who opposes property rights can use the same argument to oppose laws against murder. Government MUST, as its single duty, protect our negative rights,

Government has other duties than that.

property being among them.

But only property in products of labor, not property in land.

 

[Steven Douglas]

#1332, Roy.