What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Danke]

[WIKI][/WIKI]

Did this thread die?

Keep it going, it is close to overtaking the Fiji water thread.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Despite his ham-handed attempts to malign LVT ("theft exemption," etc. -- <yawn>)...,

Actually, I left that deliberately unqualified, so that you could take your own meaning from it. You declared many times that uncompensated exclusive use of land is a form of theft. Ergo, since you would allow individuals a certain amount of land for exclusive use without any compensation paid to others, "an exemption" on LVT (not LVT itself) would literally be an exemption on theft.

Of course, it works the other way as well. You see uncompensated exclusive use of land as theft, while I see LVT as a form of theft. So it can accurately ::: yawn ::: be considered a theft exemption either way, from either POV.

...he was forced to admit that it is the revenue solution that aligns government's financial interests with the market's judgment...

Hardly. Nice try, Mr. Eel. There is no doubt that such a revenue mechanism would make the state an active market participant, with its interests most certainly aligned mostly with highest bidders in its own macabre artificial arena game of Let's Everyone Fight, but I never once believed that the "market's judgment" would drive LVT, except as primarily governed by the state's judgment (e.g., artificial scarcity via zoning laws, or decisions on which lands to withhold from the market - without compensation to anyone - , etc., along with government derived formulae and methodologies for assessing rent values).

 

[Roy L]

Actually, I left that deliberately unqualified, so that you could take your own meaning from it. You declared many times that uncompensated exclusive use of land is a form of theft. Ergo, since you would allow individuals a certain amount of land for exclusive use without any compensation paid to others,

Nope. Wrong AGAIN. Their exemptions ARE the compensation paid to others. The user who only uses up to the exempt amount of land compensates others for depriving them of it by not exercising HIS natural liberty right to use the land THEY choose to use exclusively for free.

"an exemption" on LVT (not LVT itself) would literally be an exemption on theft.

Refuted.

Of course, it works the other way as well. You see uncompensated exclusive use of land as theft, while I see LVT as a form of theft.

The difference being, of course, that I can support my view with fact and logic.

There is no doubt that such a revenue mechanism would make the state an active market participant,

No more than any other trustee honorably discharging his responsibilities.

with its interests most certainly aligned mostly with highest bidders in its own macabre artificial arena game of Let's Everyone Fight,

That's just a silly lie from you, of course. There is nothing artificial (let alone "macabre," LOL!) about market bidding, nor is any fighting involved. You know this.

but I never once believed that the "market's judgment" would drive LVT, except as primarily governed by the state's judgment (e.g., artificial scarcity via zoning laws,

Nope. You're wrong AGAIN. The LVT authority's financial incentive is to match the most productive users and uses with each parcel, because that maximizes total revenue. Zoning laws create artificial scarcity NOW because they are imposed for the unearned profit of politically connected landowners, speculators, and developers at the expense of everyone else. It is in fact the current system of private landowner privilege, by contrast, that creates an artificial game of Let's Everyone Fight, by giving every landowner a financial incentive to get government to stop productive use of all the other landowners' land.

or decisions on which lands to withhold from the market - without compensation to anyone - ,

Lie. The exemption is compensation.

etc., along with government derived formulae and methodologies for assessing rent values).

Lie. The formulae and methodologies are developed to serve prospective private land users who want to know where to invest in productive capital improvements and enterprises.

Steven, don't you understand what it means when you always have to lie in order to have anything to say at all?

 

[Steven Douglas]

The difference being, of course, that I can support my view with fact and logic.

That has never been the case, Roy, unless we first accept you as the lone arbiter of what constitutes both fact and logic in this entire debate, as you argue in complete circles from your own ideological premises.

The LVT authority's financial incentive is to match the most productive users and uses with each parcel, because that maximizes total revenue.

...to the state. Revenue to the state. Nothing special there, as any monopoly worth its tyrannical salt is going to attempt to maximize its own revenue in exactly that way. Nothing magic there, and it is not by matching "the most productive users" with each parcel, since productivity is not a criterion. Highest valued lands are matched to the "highest paying landholders". Highest paying is all that can honestly be stated about them, with no assumption, a priori, that "highest paying" = "most productive". That's your geoist conscience-assuaging fantasy.

Zoning laws create artificial scarcity NOW because they are imposed for the unearned profit of politically connected landowners, speculators, and developers at the expense of everyone else.

Yeah, terrible isn't it? What if we could inflict that same market-manipulating, market-distorting evil, but this time only for good? Why, if only those zoning laws could impose artificial scarcity IN THE FUTURE, For All The Right And Just Reasons, all would be peachy and justice would finally be served! This time it wouldn't be "at the expense of everyone else" because this time the state (which we will pretend is "everyone else") would be the one restricting land use. Without compensation to anyone else. And it can do this much more efficiently, given its total monopoly on land use issuance - and land withholding. Which brings us to...

It is in fact the current system of private landowner privilege, by contrast, that creates an artificial game of Let's Everyone Fight, by giving every landowner a financial incentive to get government to stop productive use of all the other landowners' land.

Yeah, and somehow shifting that same financial incentive to the state is the panacea? To restrict productive use of all its own withheld lands as a way of maximizing revenue through artificial scarcity - without so much as the willingness, let alone ability, to compensate anyone for that? Sounds loopy to me, Roy, but I can see why LVT would appeal to so many Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists. The scarcity implications aren't lost on them.

The formulae and methodologies are developed to serve prospective private land users who want to know where to invest in productive capital improvements and enterprises.

Oh, is that what the formulae and methodologies are developed for? And here I thought it was just to manage the monopolistic issuance of landholding privileges in whatever way would tend to maximize state revenues.

 

[eduardo89]

[WIKI][/WIKI]


Keep it going, it is close to overtaking the Fiji water thread.

You're pretty good at pissing people off, give me a hand at debating with Roy.

 

[Roy L]

That has never been the case, Roy, unless we first accept you as the lone arbiter of what constitutes both fact and logic in this entire debate, as you argue in complete circles from your own ideological premises.

No, you are lying Steven, as I have supported everything I have said with established facts of history, economics, and objective physical reality.

...to the state. Revenue to the state.

That is correct. As LVT makes the state's revenue equal to the value it gives to landholders -- value it would otherwise be giving away to them in return for nothing, as a welfare subsidy giveaway at the expense of the honest and productive -- maximizing the state's revenue under LVT means maximizing the total benefit government confers on the people using the land within its jurisdiction. Indeed, as I have proved to you before but you always refuse to know, the Henry George Theorem implies that LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE way to align government's financial interests with the people's best interests.

Nothing special there, as any monopoly worth its tyrannical salt is going to attempt to maximize its own revenue in exactly that way.

No, that stupid and dishonest claim has already been proved false by the indisputable facts of objective physical reality: exclusive use of land is always inherently a monopoly -- land is a canonical example of monopoly -- but although many private landowners do try to maximize their revenue by enlisting government's aid in forcibly blocking productive use of other landowners' land, often with notable success, they do so by FORCIBLY DEPRIVING OTHERS of EXISTING opportunities (i.e., by being greedy, vicious, evil, thieving, murdering parasites), not by CREATING BETTER opportunities, as government would have a financial incentive to do under LVT.

Nothing magic there, and it is not by matching "the most productive users" with each parcel, since productivity is not a criterion.

ROTFL!! Of course it is, you silly boy, as YOU YOURSELF ALREADY ADMITTED in post #1494. Remember? Here it is again:

Of course, if the value of your current land exceeds your exemption amount, you'll still have to pay or get the hell out - make room for the 'more productive hands'. Can't have non-productive hands like yours standing in the way of state revenue real productivity. No rest for the weary, as the state's interests are not aligned with yours. They are perpetually aligned only with those who have more ability willingness to pay than you.

OK, I know - if you had more you might be willing to pay more, but you don't have more, so it's all about ability now.

See?? See how easily I prove that you lie not only about the facts of history and economics, not only about the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, not only about what I have plainly written, but about what YOU YOURSELF have plainly written?

Highest valued lands are matched to the "highest paying landholders". Highest paying is all that can honestly be stated about them, with no assumption, a priori, that "highest paying" = "most productive". That's your geoist conscience-assuaging fantasy.

No, Steven, that's just another stupid lie from you, of course. It's the MARKET'S JUDGMENT of who is most productive, as measured by the price paid for that use, and any attempt by you to pretend that you know better than the market is of course just further proof of your eagerness to humiliate yourself by demonstrating your ignorance and dishonesty. Is it possible that that user will not be the most productive, and will lose money? Of course. But we can't know that ahead of time, and must await the MARKET'S judgment.

Yeah, terrible isn't it?

I am aware that you believe robbing, starving, enslaving, torturing and murdering people is good, as long as a private landowner profits by it.

What if we could inflict that same market-manipulating, market-distorting evil,

Zoning is not inherently evil; it is the inescapable effect of private landowner rent seeking that makes it evil.

but this time only for good? Why, if only those zoning laws could impose artificial scarcity IN THE FUTURE, For All The Right And Just Reasons, all would be peachy and justice would finally be served! This time it wouldn't be "at the expense of everyone else" because this time the state (which we will pretend is "everyone else")

There is no pretense about it, stop lying.

would be the one restricting land use. Without compensation to anyone else.

Oh, but you already know that is a lie, don't you Steven? Of course you do. A vicious, stupid, evil and despicable lie. The uniform, universal individual LVT exemption IS compensation. You know that. Of course you do. You just decided you had better deliberately lie about it.

Yeah, and somehow shifting that same financial incentive to the state is the panacea?

Strawman fallacy (i.e., another lie about what I have plainly written). It eliminates that particular problem, because under LVT the state can't increase its revenue by blocking production. It can only reduce it -- unlike private landowners under the current system.

To restrict productive use of all its own withheld lands as a way of maximizing revenue through artificial scarcity

You're just talking stupid, irrational garbage again, Steven. The state can't maximize its revenue that way, any more than a casino owner can maximize his revenue by hiring incompetent dealers for some of his tables to drive gamblers to his other tables. It's just more stupid garbage from you.

- without so much as the willingness, let alone ability, to compensate anyone for that?

Stop lying. You know the exemption is compensation.

Sounds loopy to me, Roy, but I can see why LVT would appeal to so many Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists. The scarcity implications aren't lost on them.

But of course, you are just making $#!+ up again, Steven, exactly as if you were yourself an evil, lying sack of $#!+. LVT doesn't appeal to "Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists," because they know it increases productive use, wealth and prosperity. I have actually had vituperative disputes with such individuals over LVT, and they always, ALWAYS oppose it.

But of course, you had to lie about that, Steven. Once you have decided to serve evil, you have no choice but to lie.

Oh, is that what the formulae and methodologies are developed for?

Yes. You can't erase facts from the universe by refusing to know them, Steven, sorry.

And here I thought it was just to manage the monopolistic issuance of landholding privileges in whatever way would tend to maximize state revenues.

THEY'RE ONLY USEFUL FOR THE LATTER BECAUSE THEY WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE FORMER. That is very much the point. Under LVT, government CAN'T DO BETTER than to let the market value the land for private users' information.

 

[Steven Douglas]

No, you are lying Steven, as I have supported everything I have said with established facts of history, economics, and objective physical reality.

Says who, Roy? Given that we disagree completely, whose conclusions about all of this are we relying upon? And if merely predicating whatever you say with words like "proved/proven", "indisputably", "objective", "established", "self-evident", "reality", etc., they are nonetheless your assertions only. Saying "proved, but you refuse to know" is absolutely meaningless...except to you. And you aren't that important, Roy. Neither of us are.

...maximizing the state's revenue under LVT means maximizing the total benefit government confers on the people using the land within its jurisdiction.

Oh yeah? So government can actually confer greater and greater real value (on "people using the land" no less?) in its quest to maximize its land rent revenues? That's quite a trick. We didn't need a government to 'confer' such wonderful benefits, Roy. The state is the least contributor in all cases. Putting the state into a Goodfellas on-the-take position won't make it any different.

Indeed, as I have proved to you before but you always refuse to know, the Henry George Theorem implies that LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE way to align government's financial interests with the people's best interests.

Your Henry George Theorem doesn't prove a damned thing. Even the mathematical derivative of the original by Arnott and Stiglitz only states that under certain conditions, land rent roughly approximates government spending. The addle-brained, class warfare conscious, wealth redistribution-minded see this, and ::: LIGHT BULB ::: "Wow! That's the ticket! The non-Marxist, neo-communist Holy Grail! Why, duh, geeeee, that would be enough revenue to fund government all by itself! Now -- if the state could just abolish land ownership entirely, and then channel those same land rents to itself via a confiscatory tax ..."

And as usual, you conflate government with people - and honestly believe that if government's financial interests are somehow "aligned with the interests" of those who are willing to pay the most to government (what a joke), this will automatically equate to what is in "the people's" best interests. Stow your simplistic, naive and altruistic assumptions about the state, Roy. The State and The People are distinguished in our Constitution for a very good reason. They are not the same thing, regardless of the political regime or any sentiments or stated intentions. People are not identical units, and commerce is not an homogenous blob, nor is commerce equivalent to The People and their "best interests" either.

ROTFL!! Of course it is, you silly boy, as YOU YOURSELF ALREADY ADMITTED in post #1494. Remember? Here it is again:

Of course, if the value of your current land exceeds your exemption amount, you'll still have to pay or get the hell out - make room for the 'more productive hands'.

You missed the quotes, Roy ('more productive hands'), like someone who holds up two hands with curled "quotes" fingers in the air before using a term in a way that is akin to sarcasm. That was me crawling into the prison that is your own mind to argue from your own premises with you. And you, so imprisoned by your own delusions, so wedded to your own premises, missed that I might be calling your precious bride an ugly pig. That whole post #1494 was just that.

Is it possible that that user will not be the most productive, and will lose money? Of course.

More importantly, and the part you are missing, is that is entirely possible for a user to profit without being productive at all. Rent-seeking isn't just about land, Roy. You should know that. And don't EVER forget that I would never agree, that land value is largely the result of community, government services and infrastructure, any more than I would attribute the value of a home to the construction hands, landscaper, security guards, etc., who may be hired along the way. Screw your infrastructure. Take the state's hand out of that bucket and watch the infrastructure get created regardless. And more efficiently.

The fact that you believe robbing, starving, enslaving, torturing and murdering people is good, as long as the state profits from it means nothing to me.

Zoning is not inherently evil; it is the inescapable effect of private landowner rent seeking that makes it evil.

Yes, zoning is inherently evil, Roy. The principle itself is evil, with no exceptions to the rule. You see what a thief gains, and mistakenly believe that the state can somehow assume the role of the thief, as it is somehow incapable of theft. That's beyond nasty, Roy. There is no proper role for theft in society.

To restrict productive use of all its own withheld lands as a way of maximizing revenue through artificial scarcity

The state can't maximize its revenue that way, any more than a casino owner can maximize his revenue by hiring incompetent dealers for some of his tables to drive gamblers to his other tables.

Roy, are you really that retarded? An increase in the scarcity of ANYTHING in demand, be it land, good, or service, drives up its value. That's fundamental, Roy. Really elementary stuff that virtually no economist, mainstream or Austrian, disagrees with. Zoning laws and withholding of lands produces artificial scarcity, which does artificially drive UP the value of lands. By withholding land from usage, you really can maximize its value, and therefore revenues, by getting more resources chasing fewer lands.

Is it really possible that you are truly blind to that fact?

But of course, you are just making $#!+ up again, Steven, exactly as if you were yourself an evil, lying sack of $#!+. LVT doesn't appeal to "Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists," because they know it increases productive use, wealth and prosperity. I have actually had vituperative disputes with such individuals over LVT, and they always, ALWAYS oppose it.

Oh yeah? I guess you weren't talking to anyone from the Green Party of the UK, with its Policies for a Sustainable Society [LINK], as they pretty much adopted every tenet of the Georgist/Geoist ideology, and LVT as you have described it, as their manifesto regarding land usage. And their proposed policies?

Policies

Land-use planning and registry

LD300 Criteria for reformed and strengthened land-use planning should include:

a)protection of sites of special importance as habitats or amenity value; (read = withholding land for use)
b)support for the overall sustainability of the economy;
c)promotion of community self-reliance;
d)devolution of decision-making on land-use to community level; (read = state = zoning)
e)best use of land already developed, especially in urban areas; (read = state = zoning)
f)reduced pressure for inappropriate building on green-field sites.

Policies

Townscapes and landscape with buildings

LP400 As far as possible any development within present cities should be confined within the city boundaries, the intention being not to encroach on any more agricultural land. For similar reasons development brought about by the needs of population dispersal should be sited on derelict or other poor quality land within the confines of an existing built-up area. However, the need for urban green spaces, both formal and informal, should be recognised and these spaces should be protected.

LP401 Housing densities should be increased by high quality design incorporating a reduction in road and parking space, keeping vehicles to the edge of site wherever possible. Car-free developments should also be encouraged, especially in areas close to amenities or with good public transport. (see TR036)

LP402 Derelict land, particularly from extractive industries, should be improved for re-use, not only for recreational purposes, but for housing and light industry. Such sites should only be developed in a way which does not lead to the loss of wildlife habitats or biodiversity. (see LD300-301)

LP403 However, the effects of climate change will mean that it will no longer be practical for the continued use of some sites, including many homes, which are now liable to regular flooding. Such derelict land should be re-landscaped rather than re-developed, and the practice of developing reclaimed marshland should be ended. Central government should also help those who are most affected. Government insurance schemes should be available to offer cover for those refused flooding cover by commercial companies, and there should financial assistance to help with relocation for those whose properties have become uninhabitable

LP404 Planning regulations should be adjusted so that zoning is discouraged. Strict segregation of residential, industrial and commercial areas kills the natural growth of a community. Provided that there is no excessive nuisance all types of building can mix as they have done in the most vigorous communities in the past.

LP405 Policy planning guidance, building regulations, and advice to local authorities will be amended so that local plans reflect the needs of the existing local population and are sustainable (see HO505). Local plans should encourage traditional local designs and innovative energy saving technologies.

LP406 Close proximity of workplaces, homes and services cuts down commuter movement and saves energy and time.

LP407 By allowing small part-time businesses, workshops, etc., to spring up in housing areas, incentives will be available for people to use their leisure time for useful part-time work at home, all of which will add to the national stock and to the character of the community.

LP408 Where segregation by building types is necessary the isolated industrial unit needs humanising with pedestrian access, planted areas and recreational space.

LP409 New building developments and road systems should be designed and existing systems adapted in accordance with the transport hierarchy (see TR030). They should provide:

convenient safe and pleasant access for pedestrians and cyclists;

convenient and safe access to affordable public transport;

measures to control dangerous and unsociable driving (especially speeding).

LP410 New residential developments should be designed as 'home zones', where pedestrians have priority and other forms of transport must travel at a maximum of 10mph. (see TR116)

LP411 Parking space for bicycles should be provided in all new developments. Residential developments should also provide secure bicycle storage, either communally or in each dwelling

LP412 Removing an existing building, or part of it, has just as much impact on the nature of the surrounding built environment as a new building or extension. Therefore, planning permission should be required for demolition or partial demolition, to the same extent as it is required to build or extend.

LP413 Planning decisions should be taken at as decentralised a level as reasonably possible. Although welcoming some regional co-ordination of planning (the 'Regional Planning Guidance' process), Local Authorities should retain democratic accountability for the development and therefore the planning process within their boundaries.

LVT appeals to the Greenies, Roy, precisely because it gives the state carte blanche to maximize revenues by artificially incentivizing the state to withhold land from usage, and to dictate control over the types of usage of remaining available lands, WITHOUT compensation to anyone. What private landowners do separately to maximize value of their rents, the state would do the same, and more. ON CRACK.

Again, the lying, clueless, well-intending but evil, LVT-pushing camel's nose needs to be chopped off for even approaching the tent. No ability to smell. Just blood gushing from what was once an idiotic face.

 

[Steven Douglas]

OK Roy, going back to revisit a few of your biggest fallacies... (each in bold)

FALLACY #1

Price is determined by supply and demand, so as the supply of land is fixed, its price is determined solely by demand.

The total supply (total area) of land on Earth is fixed, but the total supply of land which is available to a given usage or purpose is artificially determined by the state, through a) zoning laws, and b) withholding of 'protected' lands which are held in reserve by the state (read = MOST), restricted from any usage whatsoever, and c) the question of scalability of Henry George Theorem itself, as proponents and later administrators attempt to [artificially] determine an "optimum" community size. Available land supply for a given purpose is, therefore, as deliberately scarce as it is highly elastic -- anything but fixed. Ergo, its price is affected by both demand and artificial scarcity of supply.

FALLACY #2

Demand for land arises from the economic advantage obtainable by using it. This advantage comes from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides (the landowner providing nothing).

That final statement ("the landowner providing nothing") is a flagrant self-contradiction.You cannot include "opportunities and amenities the community provides" as a factor which adds value to land while simultaneously failing to recognize the self-evident fact that the landowner/landholder may well be, in most cases, a key producer of the very "opportunities and amenities the community provides" -- even a full participant, and sometimes major or even primary "provider", as in the case of a small community that depends upon a single large factory for the bulk of its wages and productivity. All other "opportunities and amenities" may be provided by neighboring communities, but that single factory may be the sole source of "opportunities" for that particular community - which means that this factory does indeed (according to you) contribute to the value of the land upon which that factory rests.

Under any regime, if I am an exclusive landholder engaged in commerce that benefits the community, I am, by definition, one of the community "providers" of opportunities and/or amenities, and I am, therefore, and by YOUR reckoning, at least part of what gives land its value. Try and collectivize that.

FALLACY #3

A tax on land value does not affect that advantage (i.e., the user does not care if he pays the rent to a private landowner or the government; the difference is just that the government is the source of the economic advantage he gains by using the land, and the landowner isn't).

Firstly, you are not in a position to project your sensibilities onto others in terms of what they care or do not care about. A user that was previously an unencumbered landowner (not absentee, owner of the enterprise which is located on land that he previously owned outright) never made rent payments to anyone in the first place, and would certainly "care" about going from no rent payments to a perpetual rent payment to the state. Secondly, I don't know of any rent-paying firm that would not be delighted to pay no rent, without regard to whether the rent collector was public or private.

...and your notion that the landowner/(economically productive occupier) is not a source of economic advantage that gives value to land was proved false above, as he provides part of the "opportunities and amenities" you credit "the community" with providing.

FALLACY #4

The landowner cannot pass on the tax, because he can't affect either supply or demand. This is very different from the situation with income tax, sales tax, etc. where the people who pay the tax CAN affect supply and/or demand.

You used a Marshallian economic model of price, with the conclusion that price is actually determined by supply and demand, almost as if consumer goods and services were items traded on a commodities exchange. On the scale of the community, and the individual firm, the economic model of price, as applied to specific firms is a gross oversimplification which completely ignores the degree to which, a) perfect competition exists (a fundamental assumption of supply and demand as determinant of price), - b) price variance regardless of competition c) individual buyer and seller behavior and preferences, and d) what buyers and sellers agree upon, or "what the market will bear", which includes sellers' supply, costs and future expectations on one side, and buyers' demand, as determined by each individual purchase.

You applied the economic model of price to individual firms under an LVT regime, claiming that it was somehow impossible for a landholder to pass LVT rent payments to the consumer, based solely on what you believed to be the fact that a seller was unable to affect supply or demand (of its own goods or services no less). However, what you failed to recognize is that rent is always factored in as a cost of goods which affects owner equity. Furthermore, in a perfectly competitive environment under an LVT regime, you would need to assume that all similar competing firms' costs would have similar LVT expenses of their own, which could be safely be factored into their cost of goods as well - meaning they could all safely raise their prices to reflect (pass onto the consumer) their rent costs. Which they would. All would.

 

[redbluepill]

I am gladdened to hear you know with such exactness what I believe. I am confused when this confident and exact knowledge seems to be at variance with what I had thought I believed, especially since I had presented it multiple times fairly clearly and further clarified it after questions.

But, what do I know?

I thought you were not a pure rhetorical agenda-bot. You were able to comprehend sentences and reply to them in an interesting and relevant way which I could not necessarily anticipate in advance. Now you're acting like just another Roy. Oh well! Merry Christmas to All and to All a Good Night!

We discussed this when I posted the Rothbard excerpt from The Ethics of Liberty. You said you disagree with him on labor being a requirement to claim land. If I missed anything else then please correct me.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

We discussed this when I posted the Rothbard excerpt from The Ethics of Liberty. You said you disagree with him on labor being a requirement to claim land. If I missed anything else then please correct me.

It was a little more complex than that. I think that there are a variety of factors which make a claim more or less likely to be valid, and undertaking transformation of the claimed resource is one of the biggest ones, probably the biggest. The size of the claim, the nature of the resource, the location of the resource, what kind of transformation you're doing, how far along the transformation is, and on and on, all play into its justice. It would be very difficult to establish a just claim without having done any labor whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a case where that would be possible.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It would be very difficult to establish a just claim without having done any labor whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a case where that would be possible.

Oh, that's easy. Just call it a birthright. An equal and inalienable "right of access and usage" inheritance. Then we all become joint heirs, fully and equally entitled, in theory, with no labor required. The state is not the owner, but rather more like the executor of a will. This will never gets fully executed, of course. The heirs are treated as minors, idiots, incompetents - wards of the state in perpetuity, under the governance of local trustees who must be appointed/elected/whatever.

Innat wonderful?

The joint heirs remain joint heirs forever - but only as joint wards of the [e]state. There are no individual claims of ownership of land, as that would violate the equal claims of the others (in that community only). Furthermore, the strength of your individual claim of access and usage very much depends on your proximity to the center of the community - with a Catch-22, as proximity to the center is also dependent on your ability and willingness to pay more than your fellow so-called heirs - given they will give more in return for what has been taken from you (and everyone else).

This all forms a nice theoretical circle of value returned by others in exchange for value taken from you, as a member of the community. How these "returns of value" get back to you and the others is another story. It is not returned directly to you or any other joint heir. The community is acting as a corporation, which may or may not pay any dividends, and which may or may not owe you, an equal shareholder, anything at all.

You, me, and everyone else, who are tantamount to idiots and wards of the state, cannot receive a return of stolen value directly. This "return of value", in the form of land rents collected, is to the [e]state itself only, not to you, which state will then decide what to do that is in the best interests of the estate. This is why it is a form of fascism, or statist capitalism, with the full assumption that whatever serves the best interests of the estate is also in the best interests of the wards, or "joint heirs" thereof.

In other words, whatever the state collects and uses, even if all the majority of that revenue was used to provide more infrastructure to the center of the community, is all counted as full remuneration to you.

That is where the Catch-22 comes full circle, because the strength and quality of your "equal right of access and usage" claim, as a ward of the trustees who exercise full control of the rules of the estate, fully depends on your proximity to the center of that estate/community. In other words, you have to be in a community to have any claim, but proximity to the center once you are in the community boundaries is only available to those who can promise to pay more. Those who are in the center: pay the most, and have the greatest claim. The further you get from the center, the less you pay, and the less claim you have.

Oh, and when a community provides infrastructure, so that you can have an easier commute from the outskirts to the center - that somehow counts as better "access" to the center. Not exclusive usage. Just "access".

That's fine, you say. Screw that community, its rules, and all of its well-established power pyramids. You have a pioneering spirit, and recognize that there is PLENTY of land available on the Earth, for which you, a proper and devout believer in Georgist/Geoist principles, have an equal right of access to - one that extends to use of ALL other lands, most of which is unused. Just go completely out of that community, you think, and into between-community lands that no community uses. From there you may not even have to compete with those in other communities. But you might be able, given enough time. Why, you can establish a community of your own.

No. You cannot do that. That forbidden fruit is the rank hypocrisy of Georgist ideology's Garden of Eden Collectives, as you will not be permitted to use, and you will have no claim on, between-community lands. Too many of your fellow Georgist ideologues have erroneously concluded that community precedes all else; not just as a matter of possibility, but by legislative decree. Thus, you may not live without proximity to an already existing, established community. Not because you are unable, or physically incapable, but because the state will not permit it. Communities are FIAT. Like legal tender, it is not a question of whether you will belong to an existing community, but only which community you will belong to at any given time.

 

[Roy L]

Says who, Roy? Given that we disagree completely, whose conclusions about all of this are we relying upon?

I'm not relying on anyone's conclusions. I'm just informing you of what has occurred.

And if merely predicating whatever you say with words like "proved/proven", "indisputably", "objective", "established", "self-evident", "reality", etc., they are nonetheless your assertions only.

No. Facts do not somehow cease to be facts just because you call them "assertions only" and refuse to know them.

Saying "proved, but you refuse to know" is absolutely meaningless...except to you.

No, it accurately describes the situation: you have been proved wrong; you know you have been proved wrong; but to preserve your false and evil beliefs, you simply refuse to know the facts that prove you wrong.

Oh yeah? So government can actually confer greater and greater real value (on "people using the land" no less?) in its quest to maximize its land rent revenues? That's quite a trick.

No, it's inevitable under LVT.

We didn't need a government to 'confer' such wonderful benefits, Roy.

Yes, we did, as the invariable absence of land value in places without government proves.

The state is the least contributor in all cases.

That is puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" chanting.

Putting the state into a Goodfellas on-the-take position won't make it any different.

It is the private landowner who is running an extortion racket, as already proved: he needs the land user, the land user doesn't need him.

Your Henry George Theorem doesn't prove a damned thing.

It proves what it says: to the extent that government spending on services and infrastructure benefits the public, it benefits landowners exclusively.

Even the mathematical derivative of the original by Arnott and Stiglitz only states that under certain conditions, land rent roughly approximates government spending.

Nope. Under certain conditions, it is EXACTLY EQUAL to government spending, and any deviation from that condition merely indicates a deviation from those not-very-unrealistic conditions.

The addle-brained, class warfare conscious,

It's a funny kind of class warfare where the only class that is ever accused of waging it is also the only class that ever takes any casualties...

wealth redistribution-minded

It is landowner privilege -- i.e., lack of LVT -- that redistributes wealth from its producers to idle landowners.

see this, and ::: LIGHT BULB ::: "Wow! That's the ticket! The non-Marxist, neo-communist Holy Grail! Why, duh, geeeee, that would be enough revenue to fund government all by itself! Now -- if the state could just abolish land ownership entirely, and then channel those same land rents to itself via a confiscatory tax ..."

Maybe a confiscatory tax on slaves would have been a better way to abolish slavery than fighting a bloody war.

And as usual, you conflate government with people

There is no agency but government that can secure and reconcile the equal rights of all the people. That fact is not a conflation of government with people. Stop lying.

- and honestly believe that if government's financial interests are somehow "aligned with the interests" of those who are willing to pay the most to government (what a joke),

That's not what I said, so you can stop lying.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can't.

this will automatically equate to what is in "the people's" best interests. Stow your simplistic, naive and altruistic assumptions about the state, Roy.

I made no such assumptions, but simply identified the nature of the relevant economic incentives. Stop lying.

The State and The People are distinguished in our Constitution for a very good reason. They are not the same thing, regardless of the political regime or any sentiments or stated intentions. People are not identical units, and commerce is not an homogenous blob, nor is commerce equivalent to The People and their "best interests" either.

And the sad thing is, you probably imagine that is relevant.

You missed the quotes, Roy ('more productive hands'), like someone who holds up two hands with curled "quotes" fingers in the air before using a term in a way that is akin to sarcasm. That was me crawling into the prison that is your own mind to argue from your own premises with you. And you, so imprisoned by your own delusions, so wedded to your own premises, missed that I might be calling your precious bride an ugly pig. That whole post #1494 was just that.

When you are caught in a self-contradiction, just claim you were joking. Cute.

Is there some reason why I would continue to respond to such despicable dishonesty? Help me out, here.

More importantly, and the part you are missing, is that is entirely possible for a user to profit without being productive at all.

Not by paying land rent, it isn't.

Rent-seeking isn't just about land, Roy. You should know that.

So, explain for me again exactly how, if the landholder is not using the land productively, his rent payment is contributing to his profits?

And don't EVER forget that I would never agree, that land value is largely the result of community, government services and infrastructure,

I am aware that you refuse to know all relevant facts. That is why debate with you is pointless, other than as an object lesson to readers on the character of all apologists for landowner privilege.

any more than I would attribute the value of a home to the construction hands, landscaper, security guards, etc., who may be hired along the way.

Right: you refuse to know the fact that if a house had not been constructed, landscaped, etc., it would not have any value.

Screw your infrastructure.

Screw your refusal to know facts.

Take the state's hand out of that bucket and watch the infrastructure get created regardless.

I'm still watching, 5,000 years later, but it never happened anywhere there has been no state. And I mean ANYWHERE.

And more efficiently.

Never happened. Ever.

The fact that you believe robbing, starving, enslaving, torturing and murdering people is good, as long as the state profits from it means nothing to me.

The state is not a profit-making venture. It spends its revenue to provide goods and services (some of which may not be desirable, granted, depending on how democratic it is).

Yes, zoning is inherently evil, Roy.

No, that's just stupid garbage from you, Steven.

The principle itself is evil, with no exceptions to the rule.

No, your claims are just puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" garbage, Steven, with no exceptions to the rule.

You see what a thief gains, and mistakenly believe that the state can somehow assume the role of the thief,

Lie. Unlike an LVT-funded state, a thief does not recover value he has himself created. It is the bandit/landowner in the pass who is the thief, as already proved.

as it is somehow incapable of theft.

It is taxes OTHER THAN LVT that are state thefts -- thefts whose proceeds are given to landowners.

You always have to lie about what I have plainly written. Always.

That's beyond nasty, Roy. There is no proper role for theft in society.

And the example of the bandit in the pass proves it is landowners who are the thieves.

Roy, are you really that retarded? An increase in the scarcity of ANYTHING in demand, be it land, good, or service, drives up its value. That's fundamental, Roy.

No, it's false, absurd, and stupid anti-economic twaddle. Do you really think that Microsoft could make more money just by making fewer copies of Windoze? REALLY??

Do you really think that if the world's wheat crop was wiped out by some new disease, and only a few tons of stored wheat were left, that those few tons would be worth more than all the millions of tons of a normal world wheat crop? REALLY??

Do you really think that if an art collector bought up all the extant works of some dead artist, he could make his collection more valuable by just burning a few canvases every now and then? REALLY??

Steven, are you really that retarded?

REALLY???

Really elementary stuff that virtually no economist, mainstream or Austrian, disagrees with.

LOL!! You are hilariously wrong about that really elementary stuff, Steven, because you are not an economist, and you have not asked the opinion of one.

Zoning laws and withholding of lands produces artificial scarcity, which does artificially drive UP the value of lands.

It drives up the value of OTHER land, but only at the expense of the value of the land withheld. Total land value (which is what an LVT-funded government is interested in) is always reduced by artificially holding land idle.

By withholding land from usage, you really can maximize its value, and therefore revenues, by getting more resources chasing fewer lands.

No, you cannot. Your claims are prima facie absurd anti-economic garbage because you do not comprehend the implications of monopoly control of a fixed supply.

Is it really possible that you are truly blind to that fact?

It's not a fact. It's just stupid, anti-economic garbage, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.

Oh yeah? I guess you weren't talking to anyone from the Green Party of the UK, with its Policies for a Sustainable Society [LINK], as they pretty much adopted every tenet of the Georgist/Geoist ideology, and LVT as you have described it, as their manifesto regarding land usage. And their proposed policies?

UK Green Party policies are an inconsistent mish-mash of ideas that have attained some threshold of political acceptability, and cannot honestly be described as "Earth-worshiping humanity-hating eco-terrorist."

LVT appeals to the Greenies, Roy,

It appeals to many of the ones who aren't "Earth-worshiping humanity-hating eco-terrorists."

precisely because it gives the state carte blanche to maximize revenues by artificially incentivizing the state to withhold land from usage,

Stupid anti-economic garbage.

and to dictate control over the types of usage of remaining available lands, WITHOUT compensation to anyone. What private landowners do separately to maximize value of their rents, the state would do the same, and more. ON CRACK.

Nope. Can't happen, because unlike certain people, the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.

+a zillion

 

[Steven Douglas]

the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.

+a zillion

To infinity and beyond! ∞

Well, Roy, what can I say, but that once again...

...you have been proved wrong; you know you have been proved wrong; but to preserve your false and evil beliefs, you simply refuse to know the facts that prove you wrong.

^^^ Just a little trick I learned on how to know for sure that I won an argument. This is based on my sure knowledge that even my opponent knows that he is wrong, but just refuses to know facts, and continues to spout off the same nonsense over and over again to preserve his false and evil beliefs. This is, of course, self-evident, indisputable, and based on objective physical reality.

the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus - Roy L.

meeza hatesa gubmint - Steven Douglas

​

 

[Roy L]

Price is determined by supply and demand, so as the supply of land is fixed, its price is determined solely by demand.

The total supply (total area) of land on Earth is fixed, but the total supply of land which is available to a given usage or purpose is artificially determined by the state, through a) zoning laws, and b) withholding of 'protected' lands which are held in reserve by the state (read = MOST), restricted from any usage whatsoever, and c) the question of scalability of Henry George Theorem itself, as proponents and later administrators attempt to [artificially] determine an "optimum" community size.

Gibberish.

Available land supply for a given purpose is, therefore, as deliberately scarce as it is highly elastic -- anything but fixed.

It is completely inelastic, as it does not respond to price.

You just don't understand why that refutes your "argument," because you are a total economic ignoramus.

Ergo, its price is affected by both demand and artificial scarcity of supply.

The condition of "artificial scarcity" IS the fixed supply, because it is unaffected by price.

You just don't understand what that means, because you are a total economic ignoramus.

Demand for land arises from the economic advantage obtainable by using it. This advantage comes from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides (the landowner providing nothing).

That final statement ("the landowner providing nothing") is a flagrant self-contradiction.

It is fact.

You cannot include "opportunities and amenities the community provides" as a factor which adds value to land while simultaneously failing to recognize the self-evident fact that the landowner/landholder may well be, in most cases,

Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. The fact that a pedophile may well be, in most cases, contributing to the opportunities and amenities the community provides does not mean that pedophiles make land more desirable. It just means that people who HAPPEN TO BE pedophiles are often also doing other things in their lives that contribute to making land more desirable. Landowners do not provide anything to the land user QUA landowners any more than pedophiles do QUA pedophiles.

GET IT??

a key producer of the very "opportunities and amenities the community provides" -- even a full participant, and sometimes major or even primary "provider", as in the case of a small community that depends upon a single large factory for the bulk of its wages and productivity.

A factory is not land, and building a factory is not owning land. The fact that a pedophile or landowner may own a factory does not mean that pedophiles or landowners provide the bulk -- or any -- of the wages and productivity in a town. You just can't find a willingness to know such facts.

All other "opportunities and amenities" may be provided by neighboring communities, but that single factory may be the sole source of "opportunities" for that particular community - which means that this factory does indeed (according to you) contribute to the value of the land upon which that factory rests.

By definition, the unimproved value of the land is the value it would have if the factory were removed and the land reverted to its natural state. The factory may therefore contribute to the value of nearby land, but by definition cannot contribute to the unimproved value of the parcel it is sitting on.

Under any regime, if I am an exclusive landholder engaged in commerce that benefits the community, I am, by definition, one of the community "providers" of opportunities and/or amenities, and I am, therefore, and by YOUR reckoning, at least part of what gives land its value. Try and collectivize that.

<sigh> Is your statement any less true if the words, "an exclusive landholder" are deleted? How, then, does your being an exclusive landholder augment the opportunities and amenities you are providing through your engagement in commercial enterprise?

See how easily all your "arguments" are proved fallacious and absurd?

A tax on land value does not affect that advantage (i.e., the user does not care if he pays the rent to a private landowner or the government; the difference is just that the government is the source of the economic advantage he gains by using the land, and the landowner isn't).

Firstly, you are not in a position to project your sensibilities onto others in terms of what they care or do not care about.

<sigh> It's nothing to do with my sensibilities, Steven, are you really that retarded? The arm's-length nature of market transactions -- that participants are indifferent as to whom they trade with -- is a given, a basic assumption of economic analysis (which is presumably why you are ignorant of it).

A user that was previously an unencumbered landowner (not absentee, owner of the enterprise which is located on land that he previously owned outright) never made rent payments to anyone in the first place,

He made all the rent payments in advance when he bought the land.

and would certainly "care" about going from no rent payments to a perpetual rent payment to the state.

He only cares in his capacity as landOWNER, not land USER.

Secondly, I don't know of any rent-paying firm that would not be delighted to pay no rent, without regard to whether the rent collector was public or private.

That is not one of the options. You just can't permit yourself to know the fact that a firm's status as tenant or owner of the land under its premises does not affect its production decisions, it only affects whether it is a landowner or not.

...and your notion that the landowner/(economically productive occupier)

Those are two entirely different things, Steven. You just have to refuse to know that fact.

is not a source of economic advantage that gives value to land was proved false above, as he provides part of the "opportunities and amenities" you credit "the community" with providing.

The landowner provides exactly as much of the opportunities and amenities the community provides as the pedophile does, and in exactly the same sense: purely by coincidence.

The landowner cannot pass on the tax, because he can't affect either supply or demand. This is very different from the situation with income tax, sales tax, etc. where the people who pay the tax CAN affect supply and/or demand.

You used a Marshallian economic model of price, with the conclusion that price is actually determined by supply and demand, almost as if consumer goods and services were items traded on a commodities exchange. On the scale of the community, and the individual firm, the economic model of price, as applied to specific firms is a gross oversimplification which completely ignores the degree to which, a) perfect competition exists (a fundamental assumption of supply and demand as determinant of price),

Wrong. There is no such assumption. You are just an economic ignoramus.

- b) price variance regardless of competition c) individual buyer and seller behavior and preferences, and d) what buyers and sellers agree upon, or "what the market will bear", which includes sellers' supply, costs and future expectations on one side, and buyers' demand, as determined by each individual purchase.

Irrelevant gobbledegook.

You applied the economic model of price to individual firms under an LVT regime, claiming that it was somehow impossible for a landholder to pass LVT rent payments to the consumer, based solely on what you believed to be the fact

That LVT cannot be passed on to consumers is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years. It is merely a fact that is not known to YOU, because you do not know any economics.

that a seller was unable to affect supply or demand (of its own goods or services no less).

The landowner qua landowner does not provide any good or service. All he does is demand money for staying out of the way, like the bandit in the pass or a protection racketeer.

However, what you failed to recognize is that rent is always factored in as a cost of goods which affects owner equity.

Land rent is not a cost of goods, it is a measure of economic advantage. It is the same whether any goods are produced on the site or not, so it cannot be a cost of goods.

Furthermore, in a perfectly competitive environment under an LVT regime, you would need to assume that all similar competing firms' costs would have similar LVT expenses of their own, which could be safely be factored into their cost of goods as well - meaning they could all safely raise their prices to reflect (pass onto the consumer) their rent costs. Which they would. All would.

Nope. They can't. The firms that are currently tenants have no increase in their costs, as the Law of Rent proves, so their landowning competitors can't raise prices without losing market share.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

To infinity and beyond! ∞

Well, Roy, what can I say, but that once again...

...you have been proved wrong; you know you have been proved wrong; but to preserve your false and evil beliefs, you simply refuse to know the facts that prove you wrong.

^^^ Just a little trick I learned on how to know for sure that I won an argument. This is based on my sure knowledge that even my opponent knows that he is wrong, but just refuses to know facts, and continues to spout off the same nonsense over and over again to preserve his false and evil beliefs. This is, of course, self-evident, indisputable, and based on objective physical reality.

the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus - Roy L.

meeza hatesa gubmint - Steven Douglas

​

What's most interesting about Roy's claim about the State is that it is contradictory to Geoist thought. (Geoism is)"a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community. Geolibertarianism (also known as geoanarchism) is, in a sense, a branch of anarcho-capitalism, taking its tenets from Locke, Jefferson, and Smith." ~Wikipedia The claim that the State is "not a blithering economic ignoramus" is fundamentally at odds with the Geoists seem to stand for. Very interesting.

 

[bossman068410]

This thred still going? No, no, no, and Hell NO.

 

[Steven Douglas]

What's most interesting about Roy's claim about the State is that it is contradictory to Geoist thought. (Geoism is)"a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community. Geolibertarianism (also known as geoanarchism) is, in a sense, a branch of anarcho-capitalism, taking its tenets from Locke, Jefferson, and Smith." ~Wikipedia The claim that the State is "not a blithering economic ignoramus" is fundamentally at odds with the Geoists seem to stand for. Very interesting.

I've noticed that as well - especially using arguments practically plagiarized from geolibs and mainstream economists who double in the finance and accounting worlds, just to see if Roy agreed with any of their premises. The only time he ever liked anything I wrote - he lit up like a Christmas tree, in fact - was in post #1494, when I took great pains to argue my points using only his words, phrased strictly according to Roy's peculiar geolibertarian heterox verbiage.

Yep. A one of a kind, lone voice crying in the wilderness, and no doubt a turd in the Geolibertarian punchbowl.

 

[Roy L]

What's most interesting about Roy's claim about the State is that it is contradictory to Geoist thought.

What's incredibly dull about all hb's claims is that they are stupid lies.

(Geoism is)"a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community.

No contradiction there.

Geolibertarianism (also known as geoanarchism) is, in a sense, a branch of anarcho-capitalism, taking its tenets from Locke, Jefferson, and Smith." ~Wikipedia

I am not an anarchist, geo-anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, and have never claimed to be. I am more or less a geolibertarian, although I do think that democratic governments funded by LVT would likely choose to provide more services and infrastructure than current governments, just because such investments would no longer involve such large welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners.

The claim that the State is "not a blithering economic ignoramus" is fundamentally at odds with the Geoists seem to stand for.

No, that's just a fabrication on your part. The geoist position is that the state has its legitimate role: to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Very interesting.

Wish I could say the same....