What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

I've followed this thread a while, and you haven't proved him wrong. Sorry.

Of course I have. Repeatedly. Don't be ridiculous.

Just as one example, in post #1020 Steven claimed Hong Kong is the most expensive place in the world to live. He was wrong and I proved him wrong. He has also made many false claims about what I have plainly written, which I have also proved wrong.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Just as one example, in post #1020 Steven claimed Hong Kong is the most expensive place in the world to live. He was wrong and I proved him wrong. He has also made many false claims about what I have plainly written, which I have also proved wrong.

I didn't cede that, Roy; I just didn't pursue it, since you seemed so incredibly clueless to the fact that your rebuttal was such a strong argument against LVT. You hold Hong Kong as a model exemplar on one hand, and yet yourself proved that it was prone to manipulation and abuse, to wit: (emphasis added)

No, HK may be the most expensive place to buy a house, but millions of ordinary working people manage to live there quite well and at modest cost, most of them in publicly owned housing. The HK government has unfortunately been following a policy of artificially restricting supply to increase its land revenue, shoveling vast unearned wealth into landholders' pockets, rather than just increasing the fraction of rent it recovers and thus reducing the welfare subsidy to landholders.

And you were completely dishonest there as well, talking to someone who knows firsthand what the cost of living is like in Hong Kong. The "most expensive place to buy a house" (your words), does in fact translate, at the very least, to one of the most expensive places on Earth to live.

You have obviously not lived in Hong Kong, Roy, where the cost of living, including rents, is anything but "modest", even with publicly owned housing - unless you are referring to a Kowloon-style stacked crackerbox firetrap. Then yeah, I guess $200 a month for an 18-square-foot partitioned slum space that you can barely lie down in, and which really does put your life in danger, might qualify as "modest".

You didn't destroy my claim, Roy, so much as you destroyed your own position, using Hong Kong as a prime example of how LVT somehow works well, even though, "unfortunately", as you said, it does not in fact work well at all, given that it is "shoveling vast unearned wealth into landholders' pockets". So I guess "owning" land isn't the only way that can happen?

Yeah, the LVT really works well -- when it works, I guess -- if the government that controls it would only follow a better policy? But of course, your version of that system would be the ideal, and would follow a better policy (as long as you are the one controlling it) because you are wise and honest, and know all that we need to know to make it so. Well, Hail And Long Live The Beneficent King Roy L., but the rest of the world just isn't there yet. Until it is, I think I'll pass on support for a system that gives government that kind of discretionary control, so prone to manipulation and abuses. I already have history as a guide to know where that leads.

Governments are run by self-interested individuals, Roy. Any public system, including one that doles out land use rights to the highest bidder, but is still run by individuals, needs equally powerful checks and balances by the individuals it governs - at the individual level.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't cede that, Roy; I just didn't pursue it, since you seemed so incredibly clueless to the fact that your rebuttal was such a strong argument against LVT. You hold Hong Kong as a model example on one hand, and yet yourself proved that it was prone to manipulation and abuse, to wit: (emphasis added)



And you were completely dishonest there as well, talking to someone who knows firsthand what the cost of living is like in Hong Kong. The "most expensive place to buy a house" (your words), does in fact translate, at the very least, to one of the most expensive places on Earth to live.

You have obviously not lived in Hong Kong, Roy, where the cost of living, including rents, is anything but "modest", even with publicly owned housing - unless, in fact, you are referring to a Kowloon-style stacked crackerbox firetrap. Then yeah, I guess $200 a month for an 18-square-foot partitioned slum space that you can barely lie down in might qualify as "modest".

You didn't destroy my claim, Roy, so much as you destroyed your own position, using Hong Kong as a prime example of how LVT somehow works well, even though, "unfortunately", as you said, it does not in fact work well at all, given that it is "shoveling vast unearned wealth into landholders' pockets".

So I guess "owning" land isn't the only way that can happen?

Yeah, the LVT really works well -- when it works, I guess -- if the government that controls it would only follow a better policy? But of course, your version of that system would be the ideal, and would follow a better policy (as long as you are the one controlling it) because you are wise and honest, and know all that we need to know to make it so. Well, the rest of the world just isn't there, Roy, and until it is, I think I'll pass on support for a system that gives government that kind of discretionary control, so prone to manipulation and abuses. I already have history as a guide to know where that leads.

Governments are run by self-interested individuals, Roy. Any public system, including one that doles out land use rights to the highest bidder, but is run by individuals, needs equally powerful checks and balances by the individuals it governs - at the individual level.

Bravissimo! +rep

 

[Roy L]

I didn't cede that, Roy;

I don't care if you ceded it or not. You were objectively wrong, and I proved you wrong. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_cities_for_expatriate_employees

Mercer ranked HK ninth, but it didn't break the Economist's top ten, nor ECA's top 20.

I just didn't pursue it, since you seemed so incredibly clueless to the fact that your rebuttal was such a strong argument against LVT.

Idiocy. HK doesn't even use LVT, because the land is all publicly owned.

You hold Hong Kong as a model exemplar on one hand,

That's a lie. HK simply proves that private ownership of land is not necessary to liberty or prosperity, and that public ownership of land is fully compatible with having the world's freest economy as well as one of the most prosperous. I have never said or implied that it is a model or exemplar. That is just a lie on your part.

and yet yourself proved that it was prone to manipulation and abuse, to wit: (emphasis added)

Oh, stop lying. HK doesn't even use LVT. It's true that the government of HK has become more corrupt since 1997, and is giving more money away to landholders. Far from holding it up as a model, I STATED that it was erring in trying to get revenue by pushing land prices higher rather than just recovering more of the rent.

And you were completely dishonest there as well,

No, that's just another flat-out lie from you.

talking to someone who knows firsthand what the cost of living is like in Hong Kong.

So what? And how many other expensive cities? A "comparison group" consisting of one example is not evidence. Give your head a shake. I have provided a reference. All you did was misstate what your reference had plainly said.

The "most expensive place to buy a house" (your words), does in fact translate, at the very least, to one of the most expensive places on Earth to live.

You have obviously not lived in Hong Kong, Roy,

I've lived in Tokyo, sunshine, which is #1 in two of the three listings cited above, and #2 in the third. You lose.

where the cost of living, including rents, is anything but "modest", even with publicly owned housing

Wrong AGAIN, as YOUR OWN SOURCE proves:

Of Hong Kong’s 2.34 million households, 30.8 per cent live in cheap, public rental housing, according to official figures. Another 16.2 per cent are in subsidised flats and 52.4 per cent are in private housing.

- unless you are referring to a Kowloon-style stacked crackerbox firetrap. Then yeah, I guess $200 a month for an 18-square-foot partitioned slum space that you can barely lie down in, and which really does put your life in danger, might qualify as "modest".

Thanks for proving your dishonesty again. HK cubicles AREN'T publicly owned housing, they are privately owned by developers, as YOUR OWN SOURCE makes perfectly clear:

"I no longer want to live in cubicles, especially those with hawker stalls below. I hope to move to a public housing estate," he told AFP outside a community centre set up to help survivors of the fire.
...
But many cubicle dwellers blame the government for leaving people with no option but to live in death traps, and for prioritising property developers' profits over the need for affordable housing.

You didn't destroy my claim, Roy, so much as you destroyed your own position,

I destroyed you then, and I have destroyed you again.

using Hong Kong as a prime example of how LVT somehow works well,

Lie. I have stated repeatedly that HK doesn't use LVT because the land is all publicly owned.

even though, "unfortunately", as you said, it does not in fact work well at all, given that it is "shoveling vast unearned wealth into landholders' pockets". So I guess "owning" land isn't the only way that can happen?

I didn't say it was. There are lots of other ways rich, greedy takers steal wealth from the productive legally. Landowning is just the biggest, oldest and one of the easiest.

Yeah, the LVT really works well -- when it works, I guess -- if the government that controls it would only follow a better policy?

Governments' reluctance actually to use LVT because it does not allow shoveling of unearned wealth into the pockets of the greedy, privileged rich is not an argument that it doesn't work when it IS used. It always works to the EXTENT that it is used.

But of course, your version of that system would be the ideal, and would follow a better policy (as long as you are the one controlling it)

Another stupid lie from you. Who controls it is irrelevant. Whether a given implementation of LVT works or not depends only on WHETHER IT IS IN FACT LVT.

because you are wise and honest, and know all that we need to know to make it so.

Compared to you I am, anyway.

Well, Hail And Long Live The Beneficent King Roy L., but the rest of the world just isn't there yet. Until it is, I think I'll pass on support for a system that gives government that kind of discretionary control, so prone to manipulation and abuses.

LVT doesn't give the government discretionary control prone to manipulation and abuse. The complicated and increasingly corrupt HK system of leasing out public land does.

I already have history as a guide to know where that leads.

Oh? Where?

Governments are run by self-interested individuals, Roy.

To a large extent, that is true. And so are corporations, only more so.

Any public system, including one that doles out land use rights to the highest bidder, but is still run by individuals, needs equally powerful checks and balances by the individuals it governs - at the individual level.

Of course democratic oversight is crucial. HK is unfortunately not a democracy.

 

[Roy L]

+rep

We already know you always +rep stupid, dishonest anti-LVT garbage. You don't have to tell us every time you do it.

 

[eduardo89]

We already know you always +rep stupid, dishonest anti-LVT garbage. You don't have to tell us every time you do it.

-Rep

Does this then mean that your post is intelligent and honest?

 

[Roy L]

Does this then mean that your post is intelligent and honest?

And informed. Yes.

 

[eduardo89]

And informed. Yes.

Garbage!

 

[Steven Douglas]

That's a lie. HK simply proves that private ownership of land is not necessary to liberty or prosperity...

It proved nothing of the conflated sort. Prosperity can happen under LITERALLY ANY regime. Whether it does or not is a matter of historical record, not theory or conjecture, as that is all we have to go on.

Liberty is based on how you define it. And your definition is one I reject as so loopy screwy that it defies all logic, since it is based on the strange concept, not of actual liberty, but of "otherwise at liberty". Nice pile of logically and physically impossible stink there.

I've lived in Tokyo, sunshine...

I love it when you refer to people as sunshine. Sport. Champ. Boss. Big Fella.

YOUR OWN SOURCE proves:

Of Hong Kong’s 2.34 million households, 30.8 per cent live in cheap, public rental housing, according to official figures. Another 16.2 per cent are in subsidised flats and 52.4 per cent are in private housing.

That wasn't "my" source. That was the article quoting the HK GOVERNMENT source. You know, using their own price indexes, like that wonderful CPI of ours that translates piss on our collective heads into fresh rain from above. Tsk, tsk, how you could be so reprehensibly dishonest, Roy?

Governments' reluctance actually to use LVT because it does not allow shoveling of unearned wealth into the pockets of the greedy, privileged rich is not an argument that it doesn't work when it IS used. It always works to the EXTENT that it is used.

So claim the proponents of any regime, including those run by despots. Communism and fascism would have worked swimmingly well if it hadn't been for those damned individuals and their individual wants, needs, preferences and conflicting motives. Even corporatism would be the cat's meow if wasn't for that damned corporate greed, not to mention those meddling kids and their damned dog. Why, if they only enacted different policies, we'd all be in heaven on Earth!

Who controls it is irrelevant.

It is, in fact, the ONLY thing that is relevant. Ever. Especially in the long term.

LVT doesn't give the government discretionary control prone to manipulation and abuse.

Yeah, because those "market" numbers, including the percentages used to determine an LVT rate - all those would naturally create themselves. What's more, they would be like universal constants. The market will change, but not those LVT formulae and rates! That's at least one thing we could count on, by gosh and by golly. And the stuff all those LVT taxes pay for - well, that's just a matter of government operating within a budget. No problem there - governments do that already! Plus, if those who run government think that more is needed, they won't be able to mess with the rates themselves - they will just encourage the market as a way of increasing revenue.

Sounds doable! Failsafe even! Especially since...

Of course democratic oversight is crucial.

"Democratic Oversight" - you made a funny, right there, Roy!

 

[Roy L]

It proved nothing of the conflated sort.

It most certainly and indisputably did, so you can stop lying. It proved it absolutely and incontrovertibly. You merely deny and refuse to know that fact, as you have realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

Prosperity can happen under LITERALLY ANY regime.

No, of course it can't. Such claims are just stupid and laughable. Prosperity can only happen, and has only ever happened, when people have been generally at liberty to produce and to keep what they produce. That's the only way production can be great enough to make goods cheap relative to labor.

Whether it does or not is a matter of historical record, not theory or conjecture, as that is all we have to go on.

Anti-scientific garbage. There are consistent relationships between historically prosperous societies and their economic policy environments.

Liberty is based on how you define it.

No, it is not. Liberty is a fact of reality. Only evil liars claim that definitions can change reality.

And your definition is one I reject as so loopy screwy that it defies all logic, since it is based on the strange concept, not of actual liberty, but of "otherwise at liberty".

No, of course it isn't. That's just another lie from you.

So you now have exactly two choices, Steven: you will either quote that definition, directly, verbatim, and in context, or you will admit that you are a lying sack of $#!+; failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.

Nice pile of logically and physically impossible stink there.

You are smelling your own logically and physically impossible stench, Steven. Apologias for landowner privilege are always redolent with the reeking stench of stupid, evil lies.

That wasn't "my" source.

Ah, yes, actually, it was.

That was the article quoting the HK GOVERNMENT source.

The article WAS your source. Remember?

You know, using their own price indexes, like that wonderful CPI of ours that translates piss on our collective heads into fresh rain from above.

Garbage. It was a simple statistic, and you have not provided any credible reasons to doubt it, nor will you ever be doing so.

Tsk, tsk, how you could be so reprehensibly dishonest, Roy?

Disgraceful. You have offered no evidence for any such claim but your own fabrications, and you know that you have never met anyone more honest than me. You KNOW it.

So claim the proponents of any regime, including those run by despots.

No, they don't, and you can't make my statement false by falsely claiming that others have made it when it was false, sorry.

Communism and fascism would have worked swimmingly well if it hadn't been for those damned individuals and their individual wants, needs, preferences and conflicting motives.

Let me know if you ever think of anything relevant to say.

Even corporatism would be the cat's meow if wasn't for that damned corporate greed, not to mention those meddling kids and their damned dog. Why, if they only enacted different policies, we'd all be in heaven on Earth!

True: some policies, such as LVT, make it harder for corrupt individuals to corrupt the system. With exactly the right policies corruption would effectively be impossible.

It is, in fact, the ONLY thing that is relevant. Ever. Especially in the long term.

No, such claims are just false and absurd, as well as dishonest. History shows that people respond to incentives, including those in charge.

Yeah, because those "market" numbers, including the percentages used to determine an LVT rate - all those would naturally create themselves.

The market establishes prices. That's what it does. I don't know what you mean by "the percentages used to create an LVT rate," and I doubt that you know, either.

What's more, they would be like universal constants. The market will change, but not those LVT formulae and rates! That's at least one thing we could count on, by gosh and by golly.

More stupid strawman garbage.

And the stuff all those LVT taxes pay for - well, that's just a matter of government operating within a budget. No problem there - governments do that already!

No, they don't, because THE CURRENT SYSTEM FORCES THEM NOT TO. Lack of LVT FORCES governments to give large, growing, and unsustainable welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners. Without LVT or some similar arrangement to recover the increased land rent their spending creates, they HAVE NO CHOICE, by economic law.

Plus, if those who run government think that more is needed, they won't be able to mess with the rates themselves - they will just encourage the market as a way of increasing revenue.

Wrong AGAIN. They will have the automatic feedback of the market: if they waste money, it won't come back to them in increased land rent. If they spend wisely, in ways that make the land they govern more advantageous to use, they will get more to spend next year, much as a productive, successful company that spends money efficiently gets more money to spend because its customers are willing to fork over more for what it provides.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It proved it absolutely and incontrovertibly.

Well, you didn't use the word incontrovertibly before. That one took all my wiggle room away.

Well played, Roy.

 

[jascott]

I saw at least a couple Christians in this thread. Hopefully you're still here. I haven't gotten an answer yet to my most burning question.
I assume you agree that the apostle Paul said that God has established authorities on Earth, and we're required to pay taxes to them, which implies that they're authorized to levy the taxes.
My question is, which forms of taxes did God authorize them to levy? And if God never answered this directly, then how are we supposed to determine which forms of taxes are allowed?
My question is not about our requirement to submit to corrupt governments, or under what conditions we're authorized to resist or disobey. My question is about what the authorities are allowed to do. Which taxes can they levy without displeasing God?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

They can't. Stealing displeases God, as well as all other decent people. I know it displeases me. I can only imagine what kind of self-control it takes for God to keep from frying all these sleamos.

Who are the "authorities" Paul is discussing? Are political rulers in possession of any legitimate authority whatsoever? Or is he referring to ecclesiastical authorities to whom tithes should be paid? Open question.

 

[Roy L]

They can't. Stealing displeases God, as well as all other decent people.

So as LVT is not stealing but the just recovery of publicly created value for public purposes and benefit, it's the only tax that would not displease God.

I know it displeases me.

No, you love stealing publicly created land value, and you advocate and encourage stealing by other landowners. In fact, you also advocate enslavement and murder by landowners. There appears to be no form of greed, rapacity, viciousness, initiation of force, or violent, aggressive, physical coercion that you do not advocate landowners can rightly engage in, probably including droit du seigneur.

I can only imagine what kind of self-control it takes for God to keep from frying all these sleamos.

One can perhaps best understand God's tolerance of landowning as maintenance of a reliable and very thoroughly time-tested temptation to sin.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So as LVT is not stealing but the just recovery of publicly created value for public purposes and benefit, it's the only tax that would not displease God.

No, you love stealing publicly created land value, and you advocate and encourage stealing by other landowners. In fact, you also advocate enslavement and murder by landowners. There appears to be no form of greed, rapacity, viciousness, initiation of force, or violent, aggressive, physical coercion that you do not advocate landowners can rightly engage in, probably including droit du seigneur.

One can perhaps best understand God's tolerance of landowning as maintenance of a reliable and very thoroughly time-tested temptation to sin.

Roy, the stealing I was talking about was landownership. You convinced me, don't you remember?

 

[Steven Douglas]

If I wanted to know how to deal with this as a Christian, I would consult with the original Christian only, to see if the question might be settled there, and not have to resort to anything else. As such, it is interesting to note how Jesus handled the question, both publicly and privately.

Privately, Jesus spoke plainly about a principle. Publicly, Jesus answered with begged questions. Emphasis and colors mine:

Mark 12:14-17

King James Version (KJV)

14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Did that settle the question? Did Jesus answer them plainly? Those who marveled at him evidently thought so. Many could go away from this little hypocritical "tempting exchange" believing that Jesus himself had in fact told everyone to give to Caesar. But that is not what Jesus said. He left completely open the question of what was God's and what was Caesar's. He didn't say, "Caesar's likeness is on this coin - which makes it Caesar's". He only asked whose inscription lay thereon, before giving the split question.

Anyone truly versed in "the law" (ecclesiastical law, which was what the questioners referred to) should know immediately:

Deuteronomy 10:14 - Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Basically, God owns EVERYTHING.

If Jesus had said, "Render to Peter the things that are Peter's, and to Paul the things that are Paul's," that would definitely leave open the question of which things were Peter's and which things were Paul's. However, between God and ANYONE else, including Caesar, there is no wondering which is the rightful owner of all things.

In other words, Jesus tempted them back. (i.e., "You decide for yourself which things are whose.")

There is a second example, one wherein Jesus was not tempted (openly, publicly and politically baited by a loaded question). It was Peter this time, who had answered directly on behalf of his Master, and committed him to payment, by simply answering, "Yes", when asked. This time Jesus spoke far more plainly. In this case Jesus laid out the principle privately to one of his disciples, and in much clearer language, with no room for ambiguity.

Matthew 17:24-27

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Principles:

• Strangers are taxed - foreigners. The children are free.
• Giving payment to avoid giving offense is lawful.

Pretty simple and clear to me - As a Christian, I don't need to know what Paul or anyone else had to say about it afterward, except using the above as a standard.

In other words, I fully recognize that I, an American, was made a foreigner in my own country, just as the Jews were foreigners in theirs. So I pay taxes. But I don't call it anything but what it is. If I was not a foreigner in my own country, I would not pay taxes. Foreigners would.

 

[Roy L]

In other words, I fully recognize that I, an American, was made a foreigner in my own country, just as the Jews were foreigners in theirs. So I pay taxes. But I don't call it anything but what it is. If I was not a foreigner in my own country, I would not pay taxes. Foreigners would.

Steven, you seem to have given some considerable thought to this, but I have to say I have no idea what you think you are saying. How were you "made a foreigner in your own country"?

 

[eduardo89]

Steven, you seem to have given some considerable thought to this, but I have to say I have no idea what you think you are saying. How were you "made a foreigner in your own country"?

Oh oh I know tha answer!! Evil, greedy landowners!!

 

[Steven Douglas]

Steven, you seem to have given some considerable thought to this, but I have to say I have no idea what you think you are saying. How were you "made a foreigner in your own country"?

Among myriad other things, Constitutional sovereignty of individuals is no longer recognized in this country; I am taxed with taxes that are compulsory; I am licensed, regulated, statutorily, administratively governed, and otherwise treated as a corporate person acting under privilege - all under color of Constitutional law, by liberal invocation of both the Commerce and the Necessary and Proper clauses.

That and much more makes me the equivalent of a foreigner in my own country.

 

[Roy L]

Among myriad other things, Constitutional sovereignty of individuals is no longer recognized in this country; I am taxed with taxes that are compulsory; I am licensed, regulated, statutorily, administratively governed, and otherwise treated as a corporate person acting under privilege - all under color of Constitutional law, by liberal invocation of both the Commerce and the Necessary and Proper clauses.

That and much more makes me the equivalent of a foreigner in my own country.

Most of all, having no right even to exist on the land nature provided for all is what makes us foreigners in our own country.