What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[heavenlyboy34]

Ooh! I may know the answer to this one! No armed guards, violence, or threats of violence of any kind. We just build barricades strong enough to keep Roy L. and his land use coveting ilk out. Permanently. Bomb proof even. Completely exclusive.

The deprivations Roy and his motley crew will suffer will still be there, of course, but the only threat of force or violence will be on their parts alone.

Unless, that is, we can call a barricade a "threat" or "initiated force" against anyone who tries to batter their way in? Kind of like, "He hit his face with my fist!"

Yes, Roy, putting the land in a giant "safe" of sorts, with nobody needed to guard it, would definitely be a 'force' that would promise, not threaten, to deprive you of its contents - which you could ONLY get to by initiating force, or threats of your own.

Take down the sign that says PRIVATE PROPERTY - KEEP OUT, along with the one that says TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT - and just let the barricade speak for itself.

The idea of depriving someone of what they think is their "natural liberty right to otherwise use" is getting more and more delicious to me.

+1 I will use Roy's "habitating plot" as a machine gun range/burial spot for radioactive and medical waste. He won't mind

 

[Steven Douglas]

+1 I will use Roy's "habitating plot" as a machine gun range/burial spot for radioactive and medical waste. He won't mind

He should be happy, it will lower his LVT requirement should that ever get in place. All you have to do in hard times is completely trash the value of the land you rent from Roy's collectivized ownership association.

 

[Simple]

Look people, we have a country full of overprices houses that won't sell and we have an Obama Administration that wants to become LandLord in Chief. A LVT would make owning excess land a tax liability which would drive prices down. Prices come down and the housing market gets cleared. Holding property for potential future gains would become less profitable, and buying land to develop will become more profitable.

No taxes is best, but LVT comes next on the scale followed by taxation of consumption, and taxation of productivity on the far end of the scale.

So if people aren't ready to move from a socialistic nanny state to a free society, a LVT could be highly instrumental in transitioning away from the destructive economic practices we employ presently.

 

[eduardo89]

Look people, we have a country full of overprices houses that won't sell and we have an Obama Administration that wants to become LandLord in Chief. A LVT would make owning excess land a tax liability which would drive prices down. Prices come down and the housing market gets cleared. Holding property for potential future gains would become less profitable, and buying land to develop will become more profitable.

No taxes is best, but LVT comes next on the scale followed by taxation of consumption, and taxation of productivity on the far end of the scale.

So if people aren't ready to move from a socialistic nanny state to a free society, a LVT could be highly instrumental in transitioning away from the destructive economic practices we employ presently.

Wouldn't an easier, more liberty-friendly (ie not punishing people for exercising their right to property) be to return to sound money, have the market set interest rates and allow the inevitable correction to take place on its own?

 

[eduardo89]

Roy, I was wondering if you could answer two questions for me:

1) how many lies have been told in this thread?

2) who would an LVT be paid to and how does that compensate me as an individual for my "loss of liberty"?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Look people, we have a country full of overprices houses that won't sell and we have an Obama Administration that wants to become LandLord in Chief. A LVT would make owning excess land a tax liability which would drive prices down. Prices come down and the housing market gets cleared. Holding property for potential future gains would become less profitable, and buying land to develop will become more profitable.

No taxes is best, but LVT comes next on the scale followed by taxation of consumption, and taxation of productivity on the far end of the scale.

So if people aren't ready to move from a socialistic nanny state to a free society, a LVT could be highly instrumental in transitioning away from the destructive economic practices we employ presently.

Owning land is already a liability. The LVT won't lower the price of the land. Factors determining the market price for land include-location, demographics, natural resources, and nearby businesses and schools (or lack thereof).

 

[Roy L]

He should be happy, it will lower his LVT requirement should that ever get in place. All you have to do in hard times is completely trash the value of the land you rent from Roy's collectivized ownership association.

Wrong, inevitably. The severance tax requires you to pay for any value decrease you inflict on the land, whether it's resource extraction, depletion of fertility, toxic contamination, or whatever.

 

[Roy L]

Roy, I was wondering if you could answer two questions for me:

1) how many lies have been told in this thread?

It's certainly in the hundreds, probably thousands.

2) who would an LVT be paid to and how does that compensate me as an individual for my "loss of liberty"?

It would be paid to the government that secures the user's exclusive tenure. Your compensation is the uniform, universal individual exemption: you get free, secure, exclusive use of enough land of your choice to live on, including access to the services and infrastructure the LVT revenue pays for.

 

[Roy L]

Look people, we have a country full of overprices houses that won't sell and we have an Obama Administration that wants to become LandLord in Chief.

Huh?

A LVT would make owning excess land a tax liability which would drive prices down. Prices come down and the housing market gets cleared. Holding property for potential future gains would become less profitable, and buying land to develop will become more profitable.

I.e., actually developing it would be the source of profit, not just owning it when the zoning density was increased. Right. LVT would make housing far more affordable.

No taxes is best, but LVT comes next on the scale followed by taxation of consumption, and taxation of productivity on the far end of the scale.

Production and consumption are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported.

So if people aren't ready to move from a socialistic nanny state to a free society, a LVT could be highly instrumental in transitioning away from the destructive economic practices we employ presently.

Bingo. By restoring the individual right to liberty, LVT removes the need for a lot of nanny-state spending that all goes to landowners anyway.

 

[Roy L]

Owning land is already a liability.

Wrong. As long as the long-term appreciation rate is greater than the annual tax rate, Owning land is a source of unearned income:

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie

The LVT won't lower the price of the land.

It will certainly and indisputably lower the price of the land. Once the tax amount exceeded the expected appreciation amount, land prices would crash as speculators left the market, leaving only users bidding for the land.

Factors determining the market price for land include-location, demographics, natural resources, and nearby businesses and schools (or lack thereof).

And taxes. Land value (V) is just capitalized future after-tax land rents:

V = r / (d + t - g)

Land rent is the economic advantage obtainable by using the land, which arises from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at a given location. You will note the absence from that list of anything the landowner provides.

 

[Roy L]

Wouldn't an easier, more liberty-friendly (ie not punishing people for exercising their right to property)

There can be no right to property that inherently violates others' rights to liberty.

be to return to sound money, have the market set interest rates and allow the inevitable correction to take place on its own?

Sound money reduces but doesn't stop land bubbles.

 

[eduardo89]

There can be no right to property that inherently violates others' rights to liberty.

Garbage. Stop lying.

Sound money reduces but doesn't stop land bubbles.

Sound money prevents the government from propping up bubbles.

 

[Roy L]

Ooh! I may know the answer to this one! No armed guards, violence, or threats of violence of any kind. We just build barricades strong enough to keep Roy L. and his land use coveting ilk out. Permanently. Bomb proof even. Completely exclusive.

The deprivations Roy and his motley crew will suffer will still be there, of course, but the only threat of force or violence will be on their parts alone.

Unless, that is, we can call a barricade a "threat" or "initiated force" against anyone who tries to batter their way in? Kind of like, "He hit his face with my fist!"

Yes, Roy, putting the land in a giant "safe" of sorts, with nobody needed to guard it, would definitely be a 'force' that would promise, not threaten, to deprive you of its contents - which you could ONLY get to by initiating force, or threats of your own.

Take down the sign that says PRIVATE PROPERTY - KEEP OUT, along with the one that says TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT - and just let the barricade speak for itself.

The idea of depriving someone of what they think is their "natural liberty right to otherwise use" is getting more and more delicious to me.

Yes, I have already told you that: worship of your Great God Property requires you to lay human sacrifices on his altar. You probably don't realize it, but you have just explained how your evil, malicious, psychopathic belief in private landowner privilege has made you eager to spend more on walls to deprive others of their liberty than it would cost to compensate them for depriving them of it. This proves that your real intent is not to defend any sort of human right or justice, but simply to rob, starve, enslave and murder innocent human beings that you consider to be worthless filth undeserving of any rights solely because they do not own land.

You cackle with glee at the prospect of starving people to death by spending more to wall them out of natural opportunities than it would cost you to compensate them for just not exercising their liberty to access those opportunities. How, exactly, are you able to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that that is just naked, smirking evil?

 

[Roy L]

Garbage. Stop lying.

A property "right" that removes others' rights to liberty is slavery. The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all people's rights. Own all the people or own all the land, either way you have removed everyone's rights.

Sound money prevents the government from propping up bubbles.

But it doesn't stop private interests from blowing them.

 

[eduardo89]

A property "right" that removes others' rights to liberty is slavery. The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all people's rights. Own all the people or own all the land, either way you have removed everyone's rights.

Lies. All lies. My neighbor owning his land, having paid for it and improving it does not make me a slave. Stop spewing garbage.

 

[Seraphim]

Considering the sum of all human life could comfortably live within the confines of the State of Texas, I'm quite sure that the notion of me fencing up a 100 yard by 100 yard piece of land does not stop you from being free. You actually believe that garbage? Additionally, are you saying that a family has no right to protect it's space? You speak as though somehow my creating a safe(r) environment is evil "CUZ WHAT IF I WANNA WALK THROUGH THAT SPACE". Are you that ideological blinded or are you making a concious effort to be unreasonable?

Yes, I have already told you that: worship of your Great God Property requires you to lay human sacrifices on his altar. You probably don't realize it, but you have just explained how your evil, malicious, psychopathic belief in private landowner privilege has made you eager to spend more on walls to deprive others of their liberty than it would cost to compensate them for depriving them of it. This proves that your real intent is not to defend any sort of human right or justice, but simply to rob, starve, enslave and murder innocent human beings that you consider to be worthless filth undeserving of any rights solely because they do not own land.

You cackle with glee at the prospect of starving people to death by spending more to wall them out of natural opportunities than it would cost you to compensate them for just not exercising their liberty to access those opportunities. How, exactly, are you able to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that that is just naked, smirking evil?

 

[Roy L]

Lies. All lies. My neighbor owning his land, having paid for it and improving it

Owning the land doesn't involve improving it, stop lying.

does not make me a slave. Stop spewing garbage.

Your neighbor owning an immigrant from Africa doesn't make you a slave, either. But when all the land is owned, you either serve a landowner or you starve to death; likewise, when all the people are owned you either serve an owner or are whipped to death. The whipping is at least quicker.

 

[Roy L]

Considering the sum of all human life could comfortably live within the confines of the State of Texas,

Live on what?

I'm quite sure that the notion of me fencing up a 100 yard by 100 yard piece of land does not stop you from being free.

Of course not, just as you owning an immigrant from Africa doesn't stop me from being free.

You actually believe that garbage?

It is a fact that as more and more land is privately owned the people progressively lose their liberty, just as surely as if more and more people are owned.

How do you prevent yourself from knowing the fact that when people must labor for decades in the service of idle landowners and mortgage lenders just to secure a space to live in, they are not free?

Additionally, are you saying that a family has no right to protect it's space?

ROTFL! America's Founders figured that one out: the Hanover family indeed had no right to protect "its space," when that space was obtained by nothing other than forcible appropriation.

You speak as though somehow my creating a safe(r) environment is evil "CUZ WHAT IF I WANNA WALK THROUGH THAT SPACE". Are you that ideological blinded or are you making a concious effort to be unreasonable?

What happens to your liberty when ALL the space is owned by others, hmmmmm?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Lies. All lies. My neighbor owning his land, having paid for it and improving it does not make me a slave. Stop spewing garbage.

Pssh! Typical apologist for the landowner! Don't you see?! Roy L says you are a slave, therefore you are!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What happens to your liberty when ALL the space is owned by others, hmmmmm?

It is secured. The lack of conflict over who can use a place that comes from a society that recognizes land ownership promotes order. The puritans' experiment in "landless" society failed for this reason. The "takers" will quickly outstrip the "makers", plunging society into despair. Refer back to my post about William Bradford.