What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[JohnLVT]

Yeah, I've heard that myth somewhere before -- "community created"/"provided" wealth.

It is clear you lack understanding of where land values come from. The landowner does not create the value in the land. Get to know this fundament aspect of economics - it is not an opinion.

Land Value Taxation does not tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth soaks into the land and crystalizes as land values - that is where land values come from. This is economics, not an opinion. Land Value Tax merely reclaims that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized. It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services.
​

Many Geoists observe two prime negative and destructive points of current taxation in modern states:

• Privately created wealth is socialized - via Income Tax, sales tax, etc.
• Socially created wealth is privatized - community created land values are extracted by individuals and organizations.

The Geoists rightly argue the opposite should be the case in that a Single Tax using only Land Value Tax will:

• Socialize socially created wealth - socially created land values are reclaimed and used for community revenues.
• Privatize privately created wealth - no Income Tax, etc, is levied, hence people keep the fruits of their labor.

Geoists view the Single Tax (no Income Tax, tax on buildings, sales tax, etc) as only using socially created wealth to fund social and state services, with an individual retaining 100% the fruits of their labor. This appeals to many across the political spectrum.

All this has be proven in use around the world, even in the USA. I never made all this up.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If I buy a piece of land, there is no wealth created or soaked into that land other than what I do with it, that's not an opinion.

Others may build around my land, create theoretical wealth all around it (in the sense that if you bomb it all, what's it worth then), they can envy my land, desire to have it because of it's theoretical value, etc. Many years later, it becomes a ghost town of sorts, some of the original owners have stayed and endured all the percieved successes and turnovers.

 

[JohnLVT]

If I buy a piece of land, there is no wealth created or soaked into that land other than what I do with it, that's not an opinion.

"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains -- and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes NOTHING to the process from which his own enrichment is derived."
- Winston Churchill​

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Except that he pay for any service that he choose to enrich himself with that others have brought near to him. Or he still burns wood for heat, lights a candle, etc.. Free Market.

 

[JohnLVT]

Except that he pay for any service that he choose to enrich himself with that others have brought near to him. Or he still burns wood for heat, lights a candle, etc.. Free Market.

Those who rent still pay for the same services. A man who pays for utilities did nothing to increase the values of his land. Nothing as Winston Churchill said.

Fred Harrison again....

THE PROBLEM

Three million children today are living in poverty. Successions of governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax system. Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social mobility.

Are politicians to blame?

The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago by the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land. Governments used the tax system to milk the poor.

Why did they do it?

To enrich the people who own land. It is operated by all democratic governments around the world. The biggest winners are those who own land or homes in the best locations.

People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government. People who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police, rail, roads, army, etc. That sounds fair. They pay for what they receive.

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes. The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.

That sounds fair. Doesn't it?

Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive taxes. Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect.

Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government. But, the government pays it all back to them.

How do they do this?

Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads This infrastructure raises the productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the property market.

Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us, taxpayers who rent their homes for example, are excluded.
The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land. The rises in property values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse. Then who pays for the services the rich people use? The families on the lowest incomes.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they contribute. During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes in just three years. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent, pay more overall.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.

Is that fair?

There is only one way to make the tax system fair. Parliament has to tell the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.

We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George nearly introduced in Parliament 100 years ago. But, the landlords blocked them.

The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British landlords. If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public services? By levying a charge on the value of land. People who live in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to fund the service we all share in common.

THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.
We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services they receive and we are all treated as equals

 

[ClydeCoulter]

For a man that inhabits his land, it's value is to him is what he has put into it. He sees no value from those around him other than what he pays for to enrich himself of their goods or services. He does not prohibit growth around him, neither is he responsible for it. He considered a a price for a piece of land when he bought it, then he considered his effort to supply himself with his comforts, which are his.

I can see a man invest to build himself and his family a good place to provide for themselves. Someone envies his land and the land around him, perhaps because he is competition or for some large development. He does not choose to sell out, so they enrich the environment around him and thrust him from his place through LVT.

 

[JohnLVT]

For a man that inhabits his land, it's value is to him is what he has put into it.

Basic economics tells us that land values come from economic growth activity from the community. Understand that. Do not fight it.

I can see a man invest to build himself and his family a good place to provide for themselves.

LVT does that for him, as it does not extract wealth he created via income tax.

 

[Roy L]

Hmmmm...I think Roy has a sock puppet account

Congratulations on finding something else to be wrong about.

 

[Roy L]

Wouldn't it be easier (and more fair) just to have absolutely no taxes on property?

No, it would be far less fair, because the value of land is publicly created. Giving it away to landowners in return for nothing is self-evidently unfair, as it means they get something for nothing. Someone else -- producers -- are therefore getting nothing for something. That's not fair.

 

[Roy L]

He doesn't need to, we've already proven we are.

All apologists for privilege, greed and injustice lie. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

 

[Roy L]

How is it my land if it can be taken?

How is it your land in any case...?

 

[Roy L]

I think Ron Paul said something to the effect that "If a man robs and bank and gets away with it and it's profitable to him, do we say it is a success to follow"?

Bingo. Read and learn:

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

Is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?

If there were two, or three, or 300 passes, each with its own bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?

 

[Roy L]

redbluepill claimed otherwise earlier. Perhaps you haven't read the Geoist handbook completely? It has been claimed several times in this thread that Geoism is compatible with anarchism.

Try to respond to what has been said, instead of pretending we are all one person saying the same things. If you disagree with redbluepill or JohnLVT, answer what they have said, not what you want them to have said.

 

[Roy L]

If I buy a piece of land, there is no wealth created or soaked into that land other than what I do with it,

No, that's just self-evidently and indisputably false as a matter of objective physical fact. You can turn around and sell it for its market value having done nothing whatever with it. The publicly created value that has soaked into the land is precisely what made you willing to pay so much money to buy it. Why else would you? It didn't cost anything to produce, nature did that for free.

that's not an opinion.

True: it's a flat-out lie.

Others may build around my land, create theoretical wealth all around it (in the sense that if you bomb it all, what's it worth then),

OK, so you admit that what others build around your land adds to its value, wealth soaking into your land without you lifting a finger. Good.

they can envy my land

<yawn> Only a matter of time before that despicable filth showed up again...

desire to have it because of it's theoretical value, etc. Many years later, it becomes a ghost town of sorts, some of the original owners have stayed and endured all the percieved successes and turnovers.

And the land is almost certain to be worth far more because of what the COMMUNITY has done in the meantime, while YOU have done NOTHING WHATEVER to earn that value.

 

[Roy L]

Yeah, I've heard that myth somewhere before -- "community created"/"provided" wealth.

It's not a myth. It's an indisputable fact. Land value is publicly created. Period.

Individuals need not apply - but if you're a member of the community,

The members of the community ARE individuals. Duh.

you share in the credit for having helped "create" all that wonderful "community created" wealth. Yeehaw and Coombayah, there's something in it for everybody!

Yep: the right to liberty, restored via a uniform, universal, individual land tax exemption.

Now if we can just slip past questioning that tenuous reach of logic - that nebulous generality, all that's left is to figure out which community entity is best suited to go and "reclaim" all the wonderful wealth this "corporeal entity" helped to create.

It ain't the Lorax...

See? Corporations aren't the only ones who can act as a person. Incorporated communities can get in on the action as well! The faceless, voiceless, but not-so-nameless blob called "community" now has a voice, and the land has finally found its rightful, long neglected and robbed "real owner".

Yep: everyone, into the indefinite future, who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

 

[Roy L]

Not worth it for you personally, perhaps - to debate that minor little trivial point that practically defines feudal society.

It has nothing to do with feudal society. You're just bloviating.

Trivial? I think not. Trivial only to you in a "I need to marginalize this" in a personally dismissive kind of way. I'm not a serf to my government. I don't see myself as a "subject", but a sovereign

Objectively, as a matter of physical fact, you are not a sovereign, as you do not exercise ultimate authority over a specific area of land.

- regardless how you or the government see otherwise. That is the language of state oppression and the unmitigated cowardice of those collectivists who encourage it.

No, that's just silly "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense.

Likewise I do not believe my government should own, control or tax land that is private.

How could land be private? What happened to the rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it?

Most importantly, I am not a "custodian" of "the state's land" or anything else. The state doesn't even exist except as a fiction which I created and brought into being as one of "We The People").

No, you did not, as a matter of indisputable, objective physical fact. The state is not a fiction. That is just a stupid lie.

The state is the "custodian" -- and an absolutely piss poor one at that, it turns out -- of my individual rights. Not entitlements. Not collectivized anything. Certainly not my land. Just my individual rights.

If there is any such thing as "your land," the state has already made itself a piss-poor custodian of the rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. That is logically inescapable.

Will we ever be able to own our homes (INCLUDING the land it is built upon) without paying rent to the government - the ad valorem tax that has no relationship to one's ability to pay?

Land value tax never exceeds to ability to pay: just let the high bidder use the land, and he will pay it for you.

Possibly. Two words:

North Dakota
YESM2.COMhttp://yesm2.com

Legendary, baby.

Ron Paul stands behind them 100%. ​

So much for minor, trivial, and not worth debating.

Will ND follow CA off the Prop 13 cliff? Maybe. People are certainly stupid enough to give everything they earn to idle landowners in return for nothing.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Roy, the problem you have is that you are assuming that everyone is after a profit.
No profit is earned if you don't resell.
I buy land, work it, provide for myself, pass it down to my children. The only profit is what I create, not others.

Yes, some day, one of my great grandchildren sell it, now prices have gone up, but so has coffee. That's not my fault, it's inflation that is the e-v-i-l.

 

[Roy L]

For a man that inhabits his land, it's value is to him is what he has put into it.

No, of course it isn't, stop lying. He is there for reasons that existed before he arrived, or he wouldn't be there, and those reasons had nothing to do with anything he has put into it since.

He sees no value from those around him other than what he pays for to enrich himself of their goods or services.

No, that's plainly another lie. He only has access to the OPPORTUNITY to pay others for those goods and services because of what they have done. That opportunity to deal with them on favorable terms that he is wiling to pay for is part of what makes his land valuable independently of anything he has done. And access to that opportunity is what makes the land valuable without his having to lift a finger.

He considered a a price for a piece of land when he bought it, then he considered his effort to supply himself with his comforts, which are his.

What made him willing to pay that price for the land, hmmmm? He hadn't put anything into it yet. Why was it so valuable to him? Blank out.

I can see a man invest to build himself and his family a good place to provide for themselves. Someone envies his land and the land around him, perhaps because he is competition or for some large development. He does not choose to sell out, so they enrich the environment around him and thrust him from his place through LVT.

Such claims are just absurd. They would have nothing to gain from such maneuvers. They would not get to pocket the land's value, they'd just make sure they had to pay even more LVT themselves. You are talking anti-economic nonsense.

 

[Roy L]

Roy, the problem you have is that you are assuming that everyone is after a profit.

I assume no such thing. I DO assume that everyone responds to incentives.

No profit is earned if you don't resell.

No profit is EARNED if you DO resell.

I buy land, work it, provide for myself, pass it down to my children. The only profit is what I create, not others.

No, that's indisputably false. The land has become worth orders of magnitude more TO YOU -- in the convenience of your access to all the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities around you -- because of what government and the community have done.

Yes, some day, one of my great grandchildren sell it, now prices have gone up, but so has coffee. That's not my fault, it's inflation that is the e-v-i-l.

No, It has nothing to do with inflation, which is far less than land value increases. Community-created land value increases were noted hundreds of years ago when inflation was effectively zero. If land only increased in value as fast as inflation, there would be no reason to buy it.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

RoyL is talking in circles.

When I buy land and use it for my purpose to support myself (and my family), I can't help what others do around me. You say they provide this and that and opportunities and crap.
So who the f&&& cares. I pay more because someone else does something?

Oh, move if you don't like it. Move my house? So, I incur an expense or loss because someone else decides to build whatnot around me, bullshit!