What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Private property rights are the great problem solver in the world.

Only private property in products of labor solves any problems. Private property in privilege just creates problems.

For avoiding and resolving conflicts,

You might get an argument from Spartacus on that one, not to mention the victims, both rich and poor, of every revolution against propertied, plutocratic privilege.

for efficiently allocating resources,

The refutation of that claim can be found on every long-vacant privately owned lot in every major city.

for enabling division of labor,

I.e., for forcing the productive to labor for the unearned profit of unproductive owners of privileges like land titles, who consequently need not labor at all.

for enabling wealth accumulation,

By unproductive privilege owners at the expense of producers....

for respecting individual variation,

By setting Gunther the dog immovably above 99.999% of humanity:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2582533/224m-dog-tops-pet-rich-list.html

for making strong loving families possible,

By destroying the families of the landless working poor by relentless financial duress, you mean...

for enabling human dignity,

But only for the privileged... The soul-destroyed landless poor of Haiti, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc. don't have a lot of dignity.

for enabling humans to even survive at all as opposed to starving wretchedly,

Millions of the landless poor starve wretchedly every year because of your evil propertarian creed -- an annual Holocaust of the landless.

for all these triumphs and more, private property is one of the most sublime creations of the human mind.

But private property in anything but products of private labor is an abomination, and the greatest evil in the history of the world.

When private property is allowed to be the operating principle over the realm of any resource or aspect of existence, triumph after triumph ensues.

For the privileged at the expense of the productive.

Peace and harmony prevail.

Until the victims of propertied privilege can bear oppression and injustice no longer, and take up arms to oppose it.

Order and civilization in ever-increasing beauty and complexity is built.

To be destroyed by the relentless increase of inequality and injustice that property in anything but products of labor inevitably brings.

Men reach and achieve ever-loftier aspirations and ever-more-astonishing wealth -- wealth of all types, not mammon only.

Except that what you describe has happened perhaps most extravagantly in Hong Kong -- where there has been no private property in land for over 160 years.

The LVT people seem to understand the salutatory effect of private property when applied to all aspects of existence... except for land.

No, it is rightly applied only to products of labor, not to people or natural resources. Those are the three constituent classes of the physical universe, and property only rightly applies to one of them, because only property in that one does not violate others' rights.

That is, except for the raw resources of the Universe. Yet the raw resources of the Universe are all that we have to work with!

That is exactly correct: they are all we ALL have to work with. So to deprive anyone of them without just compensation is flat-out murder. You seek to rationalize and justify that murder.

Everything that we have and everything that we know is either a raw resource of the universe, or a rearrangement of those resources to make them un-raw. The resources are, then, in that sense, the bedrock for everything else, the whole human edifice. To grant private property in the entire structure built upon that foundation, but to deny it in the foundation, is to build a house upon the sand.

No. Rather, to make the foundation the property of some, so that they are legally entitled to take everything others contribute to the whole edifice, is to build a slave labor camp, and equip it with a sacrificial altar on which to lay the millions of annual human sacrifices that your Great God Property demands.

We must apply the principle of private property to everything possible.

Only if we wish to be completely stupid and evil. Your vicious propertarian creed holds that even government should be private property and serve only its owners, not the people. It holds that even the earth, the oceans, the air we breathe should be private property, so that even the right to life is reduced to a commodity we must rent from our greedy, idle, privileged, evil propertied masters.

Doing so creates boundaries of action, those boundaries create order, and order creates a noble, indeed a human, existence.

No. Securing the equal human rights of all to life, liberty and peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of our labor creates boundaries of action, order, and a noble, human existence.

To leave anything outside the domain of private property which we could conceivably incorporate into that domain, is to leave an outpost for barbarism and chaos.

That is nothing but despicable, evil bull$#!+. Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all evil. The propertarian religion enshrines greed -- evil -- as its only virtue, and takes theft and predation on one's fellows as its sacraments.

 

[Roy L]

American government spending (including federal, state, and local) is now $6 trillion annually. Eliminate interest payments on the federal debt, and eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and unemployment payments, and it's still $4 trillion. Eliminate the DOD too, and you're down to $3.3 trillion.
But http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.econ/2007-05/msg00176.html points out that land rent today is only 5% of GNP.

No, it only reports a false CLAIM that land rent is only 5% of GDP. Unfortunately, that claim is in the same category as the Fed report in 1993 that the aggregate value of all corporate-owned land in the USA was NEGATIVE.

So land rent is only $730 billion. If this is a very inaccurate estimate, do you have a more accurate one?

The $730G figure is easily disproved. It works out to only about $200/month per American. People pay more land rent than that just for their dwellings.

Or even if it's accurate, do you say that after LVT replaces all other major taxes, the LVT will take in much more than $730 billion?

It's known that other taxes tend to be shifted onto land because its supply is fixed, so abolishing them will tend to make use of land more economically advantageous -- i.e., it will increase land rents and thus potential LVT revenue.

Or if you would supplement LVT with other major taxes, then which ones, and how much revenue do you expect from them?

The first line of taxation should always be privilege. So in addition to land titles, we could and probably should tax mineral extraction rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, patents and copyrights, private banks' debt money creation (or replace private bank debt money with fiat money spent into circulation, with the seigniorage used as government revenue), and corporate limited liability.

Or would you run a perpetual deficit, as we do now?

Government debt is an outrageous fraud scheme whereby working people have to give their money in taxes to government to spend, and don't get it back; but when rich people give their money to government to spend by lending it, they get it all back PLUS INTEREST. AND, most of the government spending benefits the rich far more than working people.

Or do you say that spending should be cut down from the current $6 trillion to $730 billion, and if so, then what percentage would you allocate to federal spending, and can you give a rough idea of what your federal budget would look like?

Much current government spending is undertaken in a foredoomed attempt to undo the damage unjust and harmful taxes do. LVT would render that spending unnecessary. The federal government should be half its current size, or less.

If land is indeed a big enough factor in the economy, then the claim to the contrary should be the easiest of all anti-LVT arguments to refute, by simply giving some numbers.

Go to a real estate website for any large market. realtor.com will do. Compare the typical asking prices of SFD houses and SFD building lots. That will tell you approximately how much of average housing cost goes just for land rent. Dr Michael Hudson has estimated land rent is 20% of GDP, and that is probably in the ballpark.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No. Securing the equal human rights of all to life, liberty and peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of our labor creates boundaries of action, order, and a noble, human existence.

Aggregating all natural resources as the common heritage of all mankind tears down all boundaries for natural resources. It makes them all an enormous collective blob, free to be used by anyone and everyone, and the utter unworkability of such a system necessitates a single predatory monopolistic institution called the State be called upon to wisely preside over the management and distribution of all natural resources as Gods upon Mount Olympus. Or to wantonly burn, destroy, and dole it out to cronies. Whichever works. Whichever it feels like. Thou shalt not question it. Cause it's, like, the State, yo! The State PWNS you all, peons, so get down on yo' knees and thank it that you alive today at all.

Of course, Roy, that's not fair of me. The State would never pillage and burn. It's proved itself over the centuries to be a totally awesome and responsible system of governance. You've said it. It must be true. And if any heathen are expressing doubt, you invoke the word "Somalia" to them and that clinches it, as far as I'm concerned. I think we can all agree that complete confidence is in order as the correct attitude toward the State. The managers of the State will assume their Mt. Olympus role, they will rule in wisdom and equity, just as they have always done, just as they will always do. Any doubting heathens should be burned at the stake.

 

[MattButler]

Except for that they're not, because they can't afford the LVT.

C'mon Helmuth. You know better than this. If everyone is selling land and no one wants to own it then its value is ZERO and there is no tax to be paid. The market is not going to allow that situation. Buyers will be attracted and despite the LVT, no matter how high you set it, at some level there is a market clearing price.

 

[jascott]

I would (honor somebody's claim to exclusively own the atmosphere).

Surely you don't really mean that? Ok, I claim to exclusively own the atmosphere. Stop breathing it! If you don't honor my claim, then why not? What do I have to do to get you to honor my claim?

Lowering everyone's air pressure is obviously just an even bigger tort.

If you fail to build a fence around your land, and your dog runs onto my land, then you've violated my rights, not vice versa. And if my motion-detector-triggered shotguns kill your dog on my property, then I still haven't violated your rights.
If you fail to build a pressure dome over your land, and your air drifts onto my land, then you've violated my rights, not vice versa. I'm not stealing air from you, or spewing pollutant gases into your air; I'm compressing my own air on my own land, and you're dumping your air onto my land without my permission.
Why isn't this a valid analysis?

 

[Steven Douglas]

Ok, I claim to exclusively own the atmosphere. Stop breathing it! If you don't honor my claim, then why not? What do I have to do to get you to honor my claim?

I own all snow. I want to go after ski lodges and such to collect, but I'm afraid somebody will sue me for all the avalanches caused by my snow. Haven't figured a way around that one yet, so I'm just biding my time for now.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Aggregating all natural resources as the common heritage of all mankind tears down all boundaries for natural resources. It makes them all an enormous collective blob, free to be used by anyone and everyone, and the utter unworkability of such a system necessitates a single predatory monopolistic institution called the State be called upon to wisely preside over the management and distribution of all natural resources as Gods upon Mount Olympus. Or to wantonly burn, destroy, and dole it out to cronies. Whichever works. Whichever it feels like. Thou shalt not question it. Cause it's, like, the State, yo! The State PWNS you all, peons, so get down on yo' knees and thank it that you alive today at all.

Of course, Roy, that's not fair of me. The State would never pillage and burn. It's proved itself over the centuries to be a totally awesome and responsible system of governance. You've said it. It must be true. And if any heathen are expressing doubt, you invoke the word "Somalia" to them and that clinches it, as far as I'm concerned. I think we can all agree that complete confidence is in order as the correct attitude toward the State. The managers of the State will assume their Mt. Olympus role, they will rule in wisdom and equity, just as they have always done, just as they will always do. Any doubting heathens should be burned at the stake.

Thread winner!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Inevitably, you decided deliberately to lie about what I have plainly written.

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

Incorrect. You simply justify theft by deeming it okay when the state does it. You have it entirely backwards. You have not described a natural law at all-just a figment of your imagination. You are just an apologist for the Statists' lies.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If you don't honor my claim, then why not?

You haven't homesteaded it. There's a lot of factors involved: existing occupants and users, sheer size of the claim, lack of any significant labor or improvement applied to the atmosphere by yourself, much less enough to justify such a large claim, and the lack of even any serious attempt to demarcate your claim (put up some equivalent of fence posts, perhaps "no trespassing" balloons, make an official notice to a respected land-claiming board, etc.).

What do I have to do to get you to honor my claim?

You would have to homestead it. The atmosphere in your apartment, or in and around your house, you have homesteaded the "air rights" there, or someone before you did. I respect that ownership. That is why I would not blow tear gas into that part of the atmosphere. Unless you did something to deserve it.

If you fail to build a fence around your land, and your dog runs onto my land, then you've violated my rights, not vice versa. And if my motion-detector-triggered shotguns kill your dog on my property, then I still haven't violated your rights.... Why isn't this a valid analysis?

It depends -- are your laws open range or closed range? Actually, it doesn't even depend on that, instead the important consideration is: are your conventions (unofficial, bottom-up law) open range or closed range?

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Less_Law/Less_Law.html

In my mind, libertarianism doesn't have an absolute, a priori answer to whether you're aggressing by not fencing the cow/dog in, or he's aggressing by not fencing the cow/dog out. Were you aggressing by being nude on your front porch last night, assaulting your neighbor's eyes, or was he aggressing by having his porch light on, bouncing his uninvited protons off your body by which he saw you in the first place?

Conventions arise. People respect each other by honoring norms and boundaries established by the conventions.

And I'm pretty sure that having access to whatever air pressure existed on your property when you bought it is a well-established convention. My pollution example parallels your pressure example perfectly. The same principle applies.

 

[idiom]

"Land hoarders" lol.

 

[MattButler]

If you fail to build a fence around your land, and your dog runs onto my land, then you've violated my rights, not vice versa. And if my motion-detector-triggered shotguns kill your dog on my property, then I still haven't violated your rights.

Yeah you have. And if a child should somehow run onto your land and get blasted by that shotgun you are most certainly going to prison for a long time. Your "Title" (snicker) to land does not give you unbridled permission to do anything you want on the land to people on the land. Besides being sent to prison for murder, you are also going to have potentially large tort claims brought against you for knowingly creating a foreseeable risk and proximately causing damages. Your pie in the sky theories about an unbridled right to murder or set booby traps for children or dogs that come on to your land will never be tolerated and have never been tolerated under any tradition of common law known by us. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, which you clearly violate under these circumstances.

 

[MattButler]

Aggregating all natural resources as the common heritage of all mankind tears down all boundaries for natural resources. It makes them all an enormous collective blob, free to be used by anyone and everyone, and the utter unworkability of such a system...

The LVT position is that there is competition in the marketplace for ownership of land and control of resources and a single tax is to be assessed on the value of land to fund the general welfare of communities. Period. Your screed shows you've either understood nothing or now been reduced to intentionally distorting the other side's position. The principle of LVT has been applied in many places throughout history. Have you ever been to Fairhope Alabama? Or Arden Delaware? Pittsburgh, at various times, has applied the principle of LVT. So did the borough of Manhattan, perhaps most prominently during the 1920's. If we want to go really far back, Europe during most of the middle ages, renaissance, and even into the industrial era operated under a kind of LVT. So we have an abundance of empirical evidence on our side, and it does not create a "collective blob" thats utterly unworkable. That's nonsense.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The LVT position is that there is competition in the marketplace for ownership of land and control of resources and a single tax is to be assessed on the value of land to fund the general welfare of communities. Period. Your screed shows you've either understood nothing or now been reduced to intentionally distorting the other side's position. The principle of LVT has been applied in many places throughout history. Have you ever been to Fairhope Alabama? Or Arden Delaware? Pittsburgh, at various times, has applied the principle of LVT. So did the borough of Manhattan, perhaps most prominently during the 1920's. If we want to go really far back, Europe during most of the middle ages, renaissance, and even into the industrial era operated under a kind of LVT. So we have an abundance of empirical evidence on our side, and it does not create a "collective blob" thats utterly unworkable. That's nonsense.

Perhaps you should read entire sentences before responding to them.

 

[Roy L]

Would you agree that the most practical way to accomplish this would be simply to pay a citizen's dividend, i.e. give each citizen a fixed (or revenue indexed) amount of money each year, paid for out of LVT revenue, and assess the LVT on all land without any exemptions?

It might be slightly simpler than extending an exemption but IMO would give greater motive and opportunity for fraud, and would not be as effective in reducing poverty and associated social problems as some people would just squander a dividend, and would then be a burden on society. At least with the exemption they would have a place to live. People have a right to liberty. They don't have a right to free money.

Then each citizen can choose to live on land whose annual LVT is the same as the citizen's dividend, in which case he's effectively exempt from taxation for his land, or he can choose to live on really cheap land, and be compensated by the difference between the citizen's dividend and the low LVT assessed for his land, or he can choose to live on expensive land, whose LVT is only partially covered by the citizen's dividend and he must pay the remainder out of his own pocket.

Right. The two systems are effectively equivalent except for the people who choose to live on land cheaper than the exemption amount. People who don't want to use the good land aren't being deprived of it, and therefore needn't be compensated for not having the liberty to use it.

Suppose America were to switch to this system today; can you give a rough estimate of an appropriate citizen's dividend? $100? $1,000? Would you pay per citizen, or only per adult citizen?

About $100/month land tax exemption per resident citizen.

Or did you have in mind some other mechanism which would be even more practical than this?

IMO an exemption would be more practical, because although it is a little more work to administer, it is less subject to fraud, and produces better results.

 

[MattButler]

Perhaps you should read entire sentences before responding to them.

The rest of your sentence says "...[T]he utter unworkability of such a system necessitates a single predatory monopolistic institution called the State be called upon to wisely preside over the management and distribution of all natural resources as Gods upon Mount Olympus."

The statement is demonstrably untrue. I have already demonstrated that its untrue, several times. Let me demonstrate once more. LVT merely taxes some portion of the market value of land. It is capitalists and entrepreneurs who determine the value of land and its capitalists and entrepreneurs who determine the allocation of resources from owning that land. Not the gods on mt. olympus. Not the predatory monopolistic state. We don't have bureacrats running around telling people what to do. None of that. The market sets the price of land and owners of land determine what they'll damn well fit do with the land. If you can't pay the tax that is assessed on the land, perhaps someone more able than you to realize the HBU value should own the land. Good. Its as it should be. "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..." Genesis 1:28. The highest law of God commands a care-taking function for man on this earth. You are not forgiven for any and all uses of the earth you may claim based on your prior ownership right. The LVT puts this command of God into action.

 

[Roy L]

Perhaps you should read entire sentences before responding to them.

Perhaps you should refrain from posting absurd lies you can't defend.

 

[jascott]

You haven't homesteaded it. There's a lot of factors involved: existing occupants and users, sheer size of the claim, lack of any significant labor or improvement applied to the atmosphere by yourself, much less enough to justify such a large claim, and the lack of even any serious attempt to demarcate your claim (put up some equivalent of fence posts, perhaps "no trespassing" balloons, make an official notice to a respected land-claiming board, etc.).

It certainly appears you're saying that, after all, you wouldn't recognize anybody's claim to exclusively own the atmosphere. The obstacles which you've presented can't be overcome.

It depends -- are your laws open range or closed range? Actually, it doesn't even depend on that, instead the important consideration is: are your conventions (unofficial, bottom-up law) open range or closed range?

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Less_Law/Less_Law.html

In my mind, libertarianism doesn't have an absolute, a priori answer to whether you're aggressing by not fencing the cow/dog in, or he's aggressing by not fencing the cow/dog out. Were you aggressing by being nude on your front porch last night, assaulting your neighbor's eyes, or was he aggressing by having his porch light on, bouncing his uninvited protons off your body by which he saw you in the first place?

Conventions arise. People respect each other by honoring norms and boundaries established by the conventions.

What happens when the unofficial, bottom-up law is broken, or when we don't even agree on what it is? What's the official law? If libertarianism doesn't have an answer, then where does the answer come from? Majority vote? In that case, if the question of whether I have the right to shoot your dog on my land will be determined by majority vote, then why not also determine by majority vote whether I have the right to work without paying income taxes, or the right to exclusively own/use land without paying LVT, or even the right to breathe, rather than dogmatically assert that I do or don't have such rights regardless of what the majority says?
This goes back to the question I asked earlier, in posts #710 and #711, which nobody replied to: what's the root of authority?

 

[jascott]

Your "Title" (snicker) to land does not give you unbridled permission to do anything you want on the land to people on the land.

I agree (except for the snicker). I was presenting the argument as what I considered to be the logical consequence of absolute land ownership rights.

 

[Roy L]

If there's more than enough LVT revenue to pay the government's expenses, do you lower the LVT rate so that revenue equals expenses, or do you maintain a high rate (e.g. 90% or 100% of assessed rental value), and distribute the excess as a citizen's dividend?

Or, better, an increased individual exemption for all resident citizens.

It seems the geoist argument would require the latter choice, but in that case, if 55% of the citizens vote to spend all available revenue on the maximum possible military defensive capability, but the other 45% believe that Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" means literally that they must choose to suffer death rather than defend themselves, and they therefore object to spending any money on the military at all and would rather have the excess revenue distributed to them so that they can donate it to charities which build water purification plants in Africa, then doesn't this mean that the 55% is stealing from the 45%?

No, because the 45% would not have had that money in the absence of a government to recover it.

Wouldn't the right thing to do be to distribute all of the LVT revenue to the citizens, then the 55% can donate their money to the military?

No, because the private market can't invest efficient amounts in public goods.

It's true that the 45% will then receive defense for free because it isn't practical for the military to defend just the 55%, but this is the type of systemic imperfection which geoists themselves already accept; for example, the 55% could invest their own money to build an upscale shopping center, which increases the surrounding land rental values, which increases LVT revenue, which is distributed to all citizens equally (or used to pay for government services which benefit all citizens equally), not just to the 55% who paid to create the new value.

Government services do not benefit all citizens equally. They benefit landowners exclusively. That is the point, and provides another reason to provide everyone with an exemption rather than a dividend.

Or I, as a private citizen, can openly carry a firearm while eating at a restaurant, and thereby prevent thieves from deciding to hold up the restaurant and its patrons, but the restaurant and patrons obviously don't owe me any money for this service.

Of course: you are a volunteer.

Or, since science fiction sometimes becomes reality, let's consider a particular sci-fi future: man has been improved by genetic engineering. All of unimproved mankind has died out. Every man is now at least as virtuous as any man who had ever lived before. There's no murder, or theft, or any other crime, because nobody tries or even wants to do such things. Therefore there's no need for militaries, or police, or prisons. When there are disagreements about ownership and obligations, people hire other citizens at random to be arbiters, and losers cheerfully pay for winners' and arbiters' time. Roads are obsolete, because helicopters and blimps have replaced cars, buses, and trucks. Electric grids and natural gas distribution pipes are obsolete, because everybody has a small nuclear reactor buried in his back yard. Water and sewer pipes are obsolete, because everybody has a well and a septic tank. Government expenditures are zero; there's nothing to do. In this case, do we eliminate the LVT, or do we keep it at 90% or 100% and distribute all of the revenue as a citizen's dividend?

I suggest we'd have to wait and see what conditions are like on the ground. As land rent is publicly created, it is rightly recovered for public purposes and benefit, whatever they might be.

Can I prepay my geoist taxes/rent? Is there a limit to how far in advance I can prepay?

IMO there would be low-cost options for pre-payment for several years and a guarantee of GDP-indexed payments for many years, as a way to reduce risk for those proposing to make substantial investments in improvements.

Can I prepay for the entire duration of the government's existence?

No.

Let's say 500 years; that's a very optimistic estimate for any government.

Pre-payment would probably be limited to about 5 years, GDP-indexing to about 50 years.

Then, surely I can sublease the land which I've lawfully rented, and can sell or give away the privilege of exclusive use which my rent money paid for.

Subject to the above time limits, yes. Governments that presume to sell off the rights of future generations in return for current consideration are IMO thieves.

In this case, how is prepayment of the tax any different from outright purchase of the land?

The time is quite limited, like a prepaid lease.

If I'm not allowed to prepay, then what's the justification for the government refusing to accept from me today the money which I'll owe next year?

We don't know how much you will owe next year, and that uncertainty increases exponentially.

It would make more sense for the government to accept the money, and earn interest on it, then use the principal next year for next year's operational expenses, and consider the interest to be a donation from me.

The persistence of land and increasing land rent are much more reliable than any interest payment.

Or look at it another way: if an annual tax is better than an hourly tax due to lessened payment processing overhead, then isn't a semimillennial tax even better?

There is an optimal compromise between processing overhead and the uncertainty associated with long-term arrangements, as the history of 99-year leases proves. For most purposes, a year is a good compromise.

This also has the advantage of pacifying the anti-geoists, because they can then pretend that they own their land in practice after they've paid their taxes.

Anti-geoists do not want to pay what they owe at all. Period. They want to take from society and not have to repay what they take -- not later, and not now, either.

People who can't afford to pay the semimillennial tax upfront have the option of annual installment payments, which the anti-geoists can pretend are mortgage payments.

Anti-geoists are capable of pretending many things. Such as that they are making rational arguments.

To avoid the controversy regarding land for which title of private ownership has already been granted, let's just talk about government-owned land (or for the geoists, land for which no privilege of exclusive private use has been granted yet) which the government is considering selling or renting out (or granting exclusive privilege for). On what basis would either the geoists or anti-geoists object to semimillennial lease/tax periods?

They would invalidly violate the rights of future generations in return for current consideration. Only the future generations have a right to make such decisions regarding their rights.

How should LVT be implemented in America? Presumably all other major taxes are eliminated. Do we keep the current structure of federal, state, and local governments, with each plot of land thus still in 2 or 3 jurisdictions simultaneously, and part of the tax money for that land is sent to each government? Does the federal government decide what portion to take, and the leftovers are for the state and local governments, or vice versa?

LVT is best suited to local government, as land cannot be moved to another jurisdiction to avoid the tax, and land value is highly dependent on the quality and spending of local government. State governments could use LVT too, but a national government is more appropriately funded by the value of national-level programs such as issuance of currency, broadcast spectrum allocations, administration of use of coastal waters (including oil drilling), navigation and air traffic, patents and copyrights (if they are not abolished), etc.

Let's say that in the current system, I own a huge amount of land. I rent it all out to the highest bidders, and pocket 100% of the rent money. Tens of millions of dollars per year. I have no reason to sell any of the land, or change my profitable policy of renting it out to the highest bidders. Then, the nation institutes a 90% LVT, and abolishes all other taxes. What changes? The landless no longer directly bear the cost of government, and I only get to pocket 10% of the rent money, so I now make less profit, only millions of dollars per year. But I still have no reason to sell any of the land, or change my profitable policy of renting it out to the highest bidders. Other mega-landlords are in the same situation as I am, and don't change their behavior either. How is the LVT going to increase efficiency of land use, or cause any change in the ways that various plots of land are used?

You assume all land is now being used by the high bidders. That is obviously false, as the thousands of vacant and under-used lots in every major American city prove. Also, being relieved of the burden of taxation means the most productive will be able to bid more for use of the land.

 

[Roy L]

What you and others call "land" would be much more appropriately called "natural resources" (which in your reply to helmuth_hubener you said would be a suitable term),

It's traditional in economics to call it land, and a lot of the classical sources use that term, so it might be confusing to change it.

If I understand the geoist argument correctly, you're allowing outright ownership (following payment of a severance tax, and thereafter no ongoing tax) of _all_ matter, including the dirt and rock which comprises the surface of the crust of the Earth, and I can launch some of it into outer space as a private rocket ship after I pay the severance tax, but you're disallowing outright ownership only of _space_, including the space of the crust of the Earth, including the space of the hole from which I dug the material for my rocket ship.

No, what can be owned is the matter that has been removed from nature by labor, and is thus a product, not a natural resource. The severance tax is for that conversion, which permanently eliminates the natural opportunity.

Nearly all of the matter of the Earth is currently unowned, because nobody has paid the severance tax on it yet,

No, it's unowned because it is still where nature put it.

and the matter which is available for sale (which isn't all of it) is available on a first-come-first-served basis.

No, only the matter no more than one person is willing to pay to extract is available on a first-come-first-served basis. Everything more valuable than that goes to the high bidder, subject to severance tax.

You also wrote that the LVT for the land on which an artificial island is located, "is typically going to be little or nothing, as it was underwater and NO ONE ELSE WANTED TO USE IT" (emphasis yours). But you wrote that in past tense: "wanted". Does the government-assessed rental value of land, and therefore the LVT levied by the government, change over time, according to the demand for usage of that land, or does the assessed rental value not change?

It definitely changes, but only as the unimproved value changes.

What about 50 years from now, when the artificial island hosts a thriving metropolis; is the LVT still going to be little or nothing, even though the island's creator is earning huge rental income for use of space on the island?

Yes. However, there are certain kinds of improvements that do not need maintenance, and become "part of the land." In such cases, it might be simpler for the land tax authority to reimburse the improver for them, and then charge for them as if they were land.

If you apply the LVT to the land occuped by artificial islands the same as to natural islands, and tax away all of the rental value including the portion of the rental value which exists due to the existence of the artificial island (or even just tax away 90% of the rental value, so that the creator is unable to earn a worthwhile return on his investment in his lifetime), and the creator happens to have no incentive for creating islands other than the prospect of future rental value, then doesn't this mean that your LVT prevents the production of wealth (artificial islands) which otherwise would be produced?
On the other hand, if the assessed rental value doesn't change, then you're contradicting Henry George, who said that one of the purposes of the LVT is to prevent land speculation, in which somebody buys rural land at low value, holds it during development around it, then sells it as prime real estate.

The assessed value changes because the UNIMPROVED value of the land changes: i.e., the value the location would have if the artificial island were removed. Whatever advantages the location has that stimulate production of the artificial island will probably increase over time.

Of course, the answer to the question of whether the assessed rental value changes can't justly depend on the situation (buying cheap natural dry land and waiting for development around it, or investing to build an artificial island on wet land); either assessed rental value of _all_ land is subject to change over time, or _no_ assessed value is subject to change. And George's position was that it must be subject to change. You've said you aren't a Georgist, but is he right about this issue?

Yes, because the assessed value is still the UNIMPROVED value.

Not only the creation of artificial islands, but also the draining of swamps, and even the building of houses (because their presence increases the value of the land on which they're located), are disincentivized by changing LVT. For any given plot of land, the disincentive can only be prevented by permanently setting the assessed rental value, so that the LVT doesn't increase as improvements on or in the vicinity of the plot are made.

The assessment changes as improvements are made in the vicinity, but not as they are made on that land, because it is the UNIMPROVED value that is being assessed.