Isn't it, though? Can't have your cake and eat it under LVT. Guess we'll have to abolish it preemptively.
I know you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't care that that means others can neither have nor eat theirs.
The current system requires the productive to pay for government TWICE so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing. LVT eliminates that something-for-nothing payment to the landowner, ensuring that everyone pays only once for what they take from society. You just want to take from society without paying for what you take, and to accomplish that you want to force, repeat, FORCE the productive to pay twice for what they take.
You demand to have your cake and eat it, too. Simple.
Yes, affordable...to him. Right in line with...HIS...ability to pay. Not someone else's.
Because he now holds the land that the tax liability comes from. Duh.
Hold your slippery evil tongue there, Roy.
<yawn> The evil always accuse the virtuous of the very sins of which they are themselves most guilty.
The point at which the ability (FOR ONE PARTICULAR PERSON) to pay is exceeded is the very point where a forced eviction can ensue.
Nonsense. A forced eviction can ensue any time someone forcibly excludes others from land they don't pay for. Whether they are ABLE to pay is a different question from whether they DO pay.
Someone who is out on their ass on the street
What would stop them from using their individual exemption to obtain accommodation better suited to their needs and means, as honest, responsible, mature adults do every day? Certainly greedy, whiny, lying, infantile sociopaths might not do that, but I'm not much interested in advocating a society designed to accommodate the whims of greedy, whiny, lying, infantile sociopaths at the expense of honest, responsible, mature adults.
is no longer being charged, but that doesn't mean their ability to pay wasn't exceeded.
It means their ability to pay ISN'T exceeded. That is exactly the free market allocation mechanism whereby LVT is always affordable, and never exceeds the landholder's ability to pay. You are just crying like a spoiled little girl -- or is it like a greedy, whiny, lying, infantile sociopath? -- because you want to eat cake from the grocery store that you are not willing to pay for.
Proof of that:
1 - You pay $1,000 a month on LVT, but someone bids $1,100.
2 - You can stay, but only if you pay $1,100, because your bidding opponent will pay it otherwise.
3 - You do not have $1,100 to pay. You only have $1,000, so you are forcibly removed. (no "let" or "allow someone else" to it, to satisfy your we-should-all-be-ho-so-so-pleased sensibilities. All force)
There is no way to allocate exclusive use of land but by force. Market allocation of land tenure through LVT at least places that force under predictable, objective, efficient and accountable control.
4 - Your ass is now on the street,
Nonsense. You just move to accommodation better suited to your needs and means, as people who are not greedy, whiny, lying, infantile sociopaths do every day.
but you still have $1,000 that you aren't being charged. What do you want? The land Roy's useful idiots just brute-forced you out of.
No more than you were brute-forcing everyone else out of it.
Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right, I forgot: it's only brute force when government does it to you, not when you do it to everyone else...
However, the value for that land now exceeds your ability to pay.
?? Of course you can't forcibly exclude others from all the good land you want without paying for it. Don't be absurd. That doesn't mean LVT exceeds ability to pay. It just means you aren't WILLING to pay as much as control of the land makes you ABLE to pay.
You are just sniveling because under LVT you can't take everything you want without paying for it.
Why does simple, fundamental shit like this escape your pretzeled brain, Roy? Pretty sure that's deliberate on your part.
Are you serious? The really simple, fundamental $#!+ that escapes
your pretzeled brain is that LVT only charges you for the land you
are excluding others from, not all the land you
wish you could afford to exclude others from.
As proved otherwise (while showing your bare-assed naked stupidity in the process), it did -- as ADMITTED by your very next ass-revealing statement:
"It only exceeded your ability to pay for the land while simultaneously depriving others of it."
Oh, stop prevaricating. I never said LVT couldn't exceed the value you wanted to take from others and not pay for. I said it couldn't exceed the value you
took.
THAT value is what confers the
ability to pay. Not the
WILLINGNESS, which is what you are whining about.
See? It did exceed the ability to pay.
No, that's a flat-out lie. You still have the ability to pay it. Same as if you take home a cake from the grocery store, bought on credit. If you have the cake, you have the ability to pay for it, because (in principle) you can always just sell it to someone else who likes the same kind of cake in order to pay the store. What you want to do is
eat the cake, and then claim that the grocery store is charging you more than you are able to pay, because you can no longer sell it to someone else in order to pay the store for it. The stupidity and dishonesty of such an "argument" stagger the imagination.
Out of your own words, regardless of conditions you place on it that don't make it otherwise.
Ah, no, the conditions very much DO make it otherwise, as proved above. Control of the land automatically confers ability to pay for it. Full stop. It just may not confer WILLINGNESS to pay for it by allowing a more productive user to have the use of it.
I don't care what was simultaneously going on with others.
IOW, you want to have it both ways. Sorry, that's just blatantly fallacious.
You don't want to sell the cake you took, or pay the market price for it, but you do want to eat it. Simple.
By whatever mechanism, the price was raised, and the state issued a "PAY MORE OR GET THE FUCK OUT" order.
"PAY FOR THE CAKE YOU TOOK, OR SELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO WILL, OR GIVE IT BACK."
Right.
Bald faced lie, Roy. Bald faced.
No, that's just another stupid, evil lie from you, as proved above.
Or genuinely stupid - a sign of no critical thinking skills.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
You don't know and cannot predict or judge the circumstances that make one price affordable some but not to others
The individual's "circumstances" are irrelevant to the
market conditions: the store's cakes are known to be affordable, because it sells them at the market price. And if you take one home, it is known that you are
able to pay for it because you can get the same price for it from someone else. If you don't want to pay for the cake you took home, or sell it, then DON'T EAT IT. Just give it back. But don't eat it and then claim the store is charging you more for it than you can afford to pay.
(not that you care, being a collectivist parasite and all).
The landowner is the parasite, as already proved.
That's where your callous, evil, unthinking stupidity comes into play.
Mirror time again. I'm not the one whose belief system condemns millions of innocent people to agonizing death every year. You are.
Someone could have faced a hardship that was beyond their control.
The land they hold is not beyond their control.
Perhaps BUMBLING, STUMBLING, UNTHINKING ROY L. accidentally set fire to his business, and then disappeared to go pollute another community and business with his pyromaniacal ideas. A large portion of wealth is wiped out by Roy's bugger-picking stupidity, but the landholder is hanging on, albeit by a thread. Until Roy L.'s ugly but smarter and far more successful sister shows up, and lays down a bid of her own on the land.
Were you under an erroneous impression that that spew of dishonest shrieking meant something?
Snip all your nonsense about CA and Prop 13. I would rebut it, but this thread is already inflated with too much of your nonsense already.
You can't rebut it. Every day in every way since Prop 13 passed, CA gets worse and worse.
