What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Given the fact that people need food, water, and shelter for survival along with the fact that all wealth comes from the earth makes this counterintuitive.

Nope. Our remote ancestors got along fine without owning land, and would (rightly) have considered the modern notion of property in land not only counter-intuitive but absurd and evil.

Pure liberty doesn't sound like fun.

It sounds like fun to me.

No IP,

Hurray!

no land,

Huh?? Please explain how not owning land would make it disappear.

self-centered individualism ...

Individualism gives people the choice of being self-centered or not.

seems like an uncreative,

IP PREVENTS creativity.

unstable, lonely state of being.

No one owns land in Hong Kong. Do you think it is unstable or lonely?

Your claims are just objectively false.

 

[Roy L]

Are you going to force me to pay land tax in exchange for the "privilege" of keeping the asteroid monopolized all to myself and the teeming rock-less hordes at bay?

By what other right would you deprive them of their liberty to use the asteroid YOU claim the liberty to use?

 

[erowe1]

Correct. You have no right forcibly to deprive others of their liberty without making just compensation. By what right could Crusoe claim to own "his" island, and tell Friday to either be his slave or get back in the water?

I don't think he did have that right, nor is he presented as having such a right in the book. In the book Crusoe didn't make use of more than a fraction of the island, and hadn't even explored the whole island. Hypothetically, Friday could have made his home on there somewhere with the two living at peace with one another. But Crusoe did have a home on that island that he built and made constant use of. If Friday had chosen to live on that island independently, then he would have had to choose some other piece of land on it besides that particular piece Crusoe was using, or else arranged some kind of agreement with Crusoe that would allow Friday to make use of the home Crusoe had built and the crops he had grown. As it happened to go, Friday chose to give himself to Crusoe as a slave in exchange for Crusoe's saving his life, having nothing to do with any particular philosophy of land ownership that I could see.

You mean just as people did for thousands of years WITHOUT owning or forcibly excluding others from the land....?

This is news to me. What people did that? I want to read more about them.

The privilege is not living in the house but forcibly excluding others from the land. Try not to change the subject.

Forcibly excluding people from certain land is what the walls of a house do.

The land is no one's. If you want to deprive others of their liberty to use what nature provided for all, make just compensation to them for what you deprive them of. Simple.

How do I make just compensation to 6 billion people for excluding them from certain land? And doesn't the fact that I also let them exclude me from certain land balance out the ledger?

 

[osan]

Land Value Tax on Wikipedia

I am opposed to all taxation because it is theft and, therefore, criminal in nature.

Property taxes are the worst of them all because if unpaid, one's home may be seized and auctioned. Loss of home, for some, is tantamount to a death sentence.

I support the abolition of all taxation, worldwide.

 

[Roy L]

Would you kick them out of their home?

Do you advocate that PRIVATE landlords should not be allowed to kick delinquent tenants out of their homes?

One of the BENEFITS of a free market system is that resources tend to move into more productive hands. When the unproductive are forcibly depriving the productive of access to resources, how can we ensure the economic incentive to yield those resources to the more productive is effective?

I never proposed a system.

How convenient.

How would rent costs go up if an individual owned the land outright?

There would be no cost of hoarding. Look at rent costs in the states with the lowest property tax rates: CA, HI, DC, etc. Compare that to rents in high-property-tax states like TX, NH, WI, etc.

I advocate no property taxes so that people can OWN their homes and acreages without anyone being able to take it away from them without just compensation.

They have taken the acreage away from everyone else without just compensation, so your view looks like arrant hypocrisy. And anyone who couldn't afford the land tax would just sell their home and buy one in a location better suited to their needs and means. Do you really believe people are too stupid to figure that out?

"Secure in their possessions."

Even the ones they stole....?

 

[Travlyr]

Doesn't sound fun to me,

The errors of Hans-Herman Hoppe
Or take the famous paragraph from his Democracy book: “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

 

[Roy L]

I am opposed to all taxation because it is theft and, therefore, criminal in nature.

It is private appropriation of land that is theft and therefore criminal in nature, as it forcibly deprives others of their liberty to use what nature provided for all. Land value taxation redresses that theft.

Property taxes are the worst of them all because if unpaid, one's home may be seized and auctioned.

When has that ever happened? We see this claim over and over again, but where is the documented case? People who can't afford their property taxes just sell and move to a less affluent neighborhood. It's not rocket science.

If you were really concerned about people losing their homes, you would support HIGHER property taxes. The proof is in California, which passed Proposition 13 for the purported purpose of ensuring people would not lose their homes. But what happened? Lower and relentlessly declining property taxes inflated a huge housing bubble; so now, instead of a handful of Californians each year deciding to sell up for a nice profit and move, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Californians really are LOSING their homes, and their savings, and have been financially destroyed.

It is not an accident that lower property taxes make more people lose their homes. It is the intended purpose.

Loss of home, for some, is tantamount to a death sentence.

And as I just proved to you, loss of home becomes more likely the lower the property tax rate.

I support the abolition of all taxation, worldwide.

Then you support anarchy. How's that Somalia thing workin' for ya?

 

[wizardwatson]

I read up on George's ideas a while back (Progress and Poverty) and have also read (also a while back) Rothbard's critique as well as a Georgist critique of Rothbard's critique.

I'm sympathetic so both sides because I do believe there is a "land problem" but I'm not sure if the remedy George describes is feasible and I'm not quite sure Rothbard's critique is totally sound. Would nationalizing the land be possible without essentially driving the market price of land to zero? Will it actually create land at the margin that people could essentially homestead for free (realizing rental values after the fact)? Would there actually be a practical simple way for the government to determine rental values objectively?

Anyway, I feel like after reading both sides that I have more questions than answers and even some of my own.

For instance... Let's say the land in a Georgist situation has a market value, and that rental calculation is easy. I'm not sure it is, but lets say it is for this example. Let's say I'm a homesteader in some backwoods of Kentucky. I'm totally self-sufficient and get my food and water directly off my land which is at the margin so the rent is zero. However the government soon builds a road along my property line. The appraiser then increases the rent to $100 a year as my land is now worth more. Then someone opens up a hotel and gas station across the street and my rent is increased further.

Now the same scenario occurs in our current system as your land can get reappraised and the property tax can go up. However in the Georgist scenario you don't have lease options. In the current system a gas station for instance (in order to protect investment) might lease a piece of property for 20 years at a fixed price, whereas in a Georgist scenario my rent/lease amount could skyrocket over this 20 year period.

This is only one of a multitude of questions I have about the land problem. I think its still an unsolved problem even from a strictly intellectual standpoint, and certainly is unsolved as related to actually implementing it.

I'm drawn to the idea of a fair and balanced single tax system just don't know if George's ideas would work, but on the other hand, I haven't seen a sound argument for a single tax system from the Austrian side either, it's always "tax=theft" or "no taxes at all" or "voluntary tax" and what not. Would love to see a debate on what an ideal tax system would be as I don't think in our current system we're going to see taxes become voluntary in the near future.

 

[erowe1]

Would there actually be a practical simple way for the government to determine rental values objectively?

That's a question I have too.

And who are these anointed people you call the government in this question anyway? What gives them the right to charge everyone rent for what is supposedly common property? And how does paying this rent to them somehow work as a proxy for paying all the other people in the world whom you are excluding from your land?

 

[Roy L]

I don't think he did have that right, nor is he presented as having such a right in the book.

But you are claiming he WOULD have such a right, had he chosen to exercise it.

In the book Crusoe didn't make use of more than a fraction of the island, and hadn't even explored the whole island. Hypothetically, Friday could have made his home on there somewhere with the two living at peace with one another.

I'm not talking about what happened in the book, I'm talking about what you claim Crusoe had a right to do.

But Crusoe did have a home on that island that he built and made constant use of.

The home was not land. You are trying to change the subject again.

If Friday had chosen to live on that island independently, then he would have had to choose some other piece of land on it besides that particular piece Crusoe was using,

Why? People have lived on the same land for thousands of years without troubling each other.

or else arranged some kind of agreement with Crusoe that would allow Friday to make use of the home Crusoe had built and the crops he had grown.

The home he built and the crops he grew are NOT LAND. You are still trying to change the subject.

This is news to me. What people did that? I want to read more about them.

Every human being who existed before the concept of private property in land was invented.

Forcibly excluding people from certain land is what the walls of a house do.

False, as any squatter could explain to you. You are trying to change the subject again.

How do I make just compensation to 6 billion people for excluding them from certain land?

You are only excluding the people who could actually use the land. That would not include peasants in Pakistan.

And doesn't the fact that I also let them exclude me from certain land balance out the ledger?

No, of course not. The greater the value of land you exclude others from, the more unbalanced the ledger is in your favor. You might ask the homeless if they think they are being justly compensated for being forcibly excluded from using the land.

 

[erowe1]

But you are claiming he WOULD have such a right, had he chosen to exercise it.

I'm not sure where I said this. Can you provide the quote?

I'm not talking about what happened in the book, I'm talking about what you claim Crusoe had a right to do.

OK. So then why did you mention Robinson Crusoe?

The home was not land. You are trying to change the subject again.

The home occupied land. All homes do. You keep saying I'm changing the subject. Is there some reason you are so zealously avoiding any question about owning homes? Seems like it might be something you recognize as a weak spot.

Why? People have lived on the same land for thousands of years without troubling each other.

Who? I want to read more about these people.

Every human being who existed before the concept of private property in land was invented.

Can you tell me about any specific ones, along with primary sources I can read that describe how they lived?

False, as any squatter could explain to you.

I admit that I haven't asked any squatters about this. But if I were to be a squatter, one of the things I would use the walls of the house I'm squatting in would be to keep other people out of it. Do you have a reason to think otherwise?

Naturally, keeping them out of the house would entail keeping them off of the land it occupies.

You are only excluding the people who could actually use the land. That would not include peasants in Pakistan.

How do I determine which of the 6 billion people on the planet count as ones who could actually use the land?

 

[wizardwatson]

That's a question I have too.

And who are these anointed people you call the government in this question anyway? What gives them the right to charge everyone rent for what is supposedly common property? And how does paying this rent to them somehow work as a proxy for paying all the other people in the world whom you are excluding from your land?

All good points, like a lot of posters in this thread, and I just don't know. George makes a convincing argument but I'm not yet convinced that ground rent taxation makes 100% sense. But I'm also turned off by the anarcho's knee-jerk reaction of tax=theft. We have a current system. This system can be changed, albeit with much difficulty and over a period of time. So what is the ideal tax system, and how do we move from here to there.

Everyone gets stuck in philosophical debates regurgitating things they've read, but we don't have a consensus on the remedy, much less any strategy to get us there.

I'm partial to a general wealth tax simply because I haven't heard anything better. The opinion of others is that we should have a tax on consumption as that would encourage savings and investment in capital goods, but it seems to me this punishes non-savers. Anyway, I'm all ears for a ideal tax but I'll stick with my general wealth tax until someone convinces me otherwise.

 

[erowe1]

All good points, like a lot of posters in this thread, and I just don't know. George makes a convincing argument but I'm not yet convinced that ground rent taxation makes 100% sense. But I'm also turned off by the anarcho's knee-jerk reaction of tax=theft. We have a current system. This system can be changed, albeit with much difficulty and over a period of time. So what is the ideal tax system, and how do we move from here to there.

Everyone gets stuck in philosophical debates regurgitating things they've read, but we don't have a consensus on the remedy, much less any strategy to get us there.

I'm partial to a general wealth tax simply because I haven't heard anything better. The opinion of others is that we should have a tax on consumption as that would encourage savings and investment in capital goods, but it seems to me this punishes non-savers. Anyway, I'm all ears for a ideal tax but I'll stick with my general wealth tax until someone convinces me otherwise.

I agree. I remember being uneasy about Medina wanting to replace a property tax with a sales tax, as though property taxes were uniquely bad in a way that sales taxes weren't. But most people around here seemed to agree with her reasoning.

 

[Dr.3D]

Next I suppose we will hear about how gold is like land and those who already own it all, won't allow others to have any. Gold is really money. People used to buy land using gold. People would sell land for gold. For the right price, nearly any piece of land is for sale.

I suggest those who believe all of the land is already taken, should go out and earn some money (gold) and buy some land. No one has a right to a handout. You want to live on this planet, you are going to have to pay for it some way. You can buy land and use it to supply your needs for survival, but you originally bought the land with money, or had it passed on to you by your relatives. In order to get the land to produce your needs, you are going to need seed and implements to work the soil, those cost money. There are property taxes to pay as well. There is literally no way a person can live on this planet without working or spending money. That is unless of course that person is being taken care of by others.

People who belive land is something no one can own, need to work for a living and buy some land. I'm pretty sure if they owned some, they would understand, land is like anything else, a commodity. It is bought and sold and thus is not being kept from others who wish to work to get the money to buy some.

 

[osan]

Next I suppose we will hear about how gold is like land and...

...should be taxed on a recurring, annual basis just as is real estate.

 

[Roy L]

I read up on George's ideas a while back (Progress and Poverty) and have also read (also a while back) Rothbard's critique as well as a Georgist critique of Rothbard's critique.

I demolished Rothbard's idiotic anti-geoist screed here.

Would nationalizing the land be possible without essentially driving the market price of land to zero?

There is a difference between market price and exchange value. Market prices would not get to zero.

Will it actually create land at the margin that people could essentially homestead for free (realizing rental values after the fact)?

That is effectively guaranteed, even in the absence of a universal individual land tax exemption to restore the right to liberty.

Would there actually be a practical simple way for the government to determine rental values objectively?

Modern computer models make this not only practical and simple but cheap.

Let's say I'm a homesteader in some backwoods of Kentucky. I'm totally self-sufficient and get my food and water directly off my land which is at the margin so the rent is zero. However the government soon builds a road along my property line. The appraiser then increases the rent to $100 a year as my land is now worth more. Then someone opens up a hotel and gas station across the street and my rent is increased further.

Now the same scenario occurs in our current system as your land can get reappraised and the property tax can go up. However in the Georgist scenario you don't have lease options. In the current system a gas station for instance (in order to protect investment) might lease a piece of property for 20 years at a fixed price, whereas in a Georgist scenario my rent/lease amount could skyrocket over this 20 year period.

It's possible but unlikely. There would typically be lease-like terms, options to pre-pay rent for future years, etc.

I think its still an unsolved problem even from a strictly intellectual standpoint, and certainly is unsolved as related to actually implementing it.

Both the intellectual and implementation problems have been solved. Implementations may be different in different jurisdictions depending on the prevailing systems.

I'm drawn to the idea of a fair and balanced single tax system just don't know if George's ideas would work,

As all government spending on services and infrastructure goes to landowners as a matter of economic law, LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE fair and balanced tax system that does not inherently give a welfare subsidy to landowners.

but on the other hand, I haven't seen a sound argument for a single tax system from the Austrian side either, it's always "tax=theft" or "no taxes at all" or "voluntary tax" and what not. Would love to see a debate on what an ideal tax system would be as I don't think in our current system we're going to see taxes become voluntary in the near future.

The debate has already been won. See my demolition of Rothbard, referenced above.

 

[Dr.3D]

...should be taxed on a recurring, annual basis just as is real estate.

I'm thinking more the other way around. Tax neither of them.

 

[Roy L]

Next I suppose we will hear about how gold is like land and those who already own it all, won't allow others to have any.

Gold ore in the ground is land. The gold people use is a product of labor and thus rightly property.

I suggest those who believe all of the land is already taken,

All the good land is certainly taken.

should go out and earn some money (gold) and buy some land.

"Why, you are not a slave, Uncle Tom! You are at liberty to go out and earn money to buy your freedom any time you like!"

Sorry, but being nominally "at liberty" to buy your right to liberty is not the same as actually having a right to liberty.

No one has a right to a handout.

Except landowners....?

You want to live on this planet, you are going to have to pay for it some way.

The way people rightly pay to live on this planet is by labor: using what nature provided to produce what they need to sustain themselves. Please explain why they should have to pay a landowner for doing nothing in order to have the liberty to sustain themselves by their own labor.

Rights are something people have WITHOUT having to pay for them. If you have to pay to exercise your right to liberty, you are a slave.

You can buy land and use it to supply your needs for survival, but you originally bought the land with money, or had it passed on to you by your relatives.

The original owner didn't. He got it by stealing it from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

In order to get the land to produce your needs, you are going to need seed and implements to work the soil, those cost money.

Wrong again. People lived on the land for thousands of years without seed and implements. People can survive without paying others for the opportunity. But they can't survive without access to land.

There are property taxes to pay as well. There is literally no way a person can live on this planet without working or spending money.

I can see why people have to work to provide a livelihood for themselves. But, explain for me again why they should also have to work to provide a livelihood to idle landowners.

That is unless of course that person is being taken care of by others.

Like a landowner, you mean.

People who belive land is something no one can own, need to work for a living and buy some land.

How will they work for a living without access to land?

I'm pretty sure if they owned some, they would understand, land is like anything else, a commodity.

Unlike commodities, land is not a product of labor. Please try to find a willingness to know that fact.

It is bought and sold and thus is not being kept from others who wish to work to get the money to buy some.

?? ROTFL! "I am not keeping your liberty from you, Uncle Tom. You need only work to get money to buy it from me!"

 

[Roy L]

I'm thinking more the other way around. Tax neither of them.

Gold does not get its value from government and society. Land does. Try to find a willingness to know that fact.

 

[Roy L]

I'm partial to a general wealth tax simply because I haven't heard anything better.

LVT is better for reasons already explained.

Anyway, I'm all ears for a ideal tax but I'll stick with my general wealth tax until someone convinces me otherwise.

I used to think as you do before I realized that all government spending on services and infrastructure inherently goes to landowners as a matter of economic law. The value of (most) other forms of wealth does not come from government spending.