What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

Then there is the question of "legitimacy" (Roy seems really big on democracy). We could always just put the matter to a popular vote. In that case, 50 votes are in favor of an LVT on you, and 51 are not, as you become the "legitimate" tie-breaker. But not in Roy's mind. The government is only legitimate when it follows what he views as non-evil, "self-evidently just", blah blah... He has his own criteria for legitimacy, thus bringing you full circle to the fundamental reality of Roy's mind. If all people on Earth voted 99.9999% against an LVT, and 99.9999% in favor of property ownership, he would still consider it evil. Of course, he'll argue that such an hypothetical vote is just silly, as it isn't even possible (and of course it isn't), but that's irrelevant to the point that he wouldn't accept it as a matter of principle even if it was.

---

There are two components to political legitimacy: valid function (securing and reconciling the equal rights of all) and democratic oversight. Neither is enough on its own, but democratic oversight is particularly tenuous. The great majority of people are of average or below average intellect, so they can easily be swayed to support tyranny. Policy can be determined by majority vote. Truth cannot. Accepting that the law is what it is is not the same as accepting that it is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

Is someone other than the individual with the exemption in charge of deciding what "good enough land to live on" means?

---

It is an equal amount of land by value for all, to be chosen in the market much as people currently choose their dwelling locations. Those who preferred to be tenants would simply transfer their exemptions to their landlords for as long as they were living in the rented accommodation.

Quote:

---

Because once upon a time in America, the Projects were considered "good enough land to live on".

---

Housing projects were generally built on fairly valuable land. If left to the market, the housing built there would have been quite acceptable.

Quote:

---

So if this is based on bureaucratic trust OF ANY KIND, by any bureaucratically changeable formula, the entire idea has all the hallmarks of a nasty, rotten, individual-abusive stinker to begin with.

---

I have suggested the mode (most frequent) land value used per person is a good enough number, and it's a statistic not subject to bureaucratic revision. I don't think the precise amount of the exemption matters very much, as long as it is equal for all. Anywhere around 10%-20% of per capita rent would probably work well enough, depending on local conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

Also, Roy, I don't know why you keep holding up Hong Kong as an example.

---

Many silly apologists for landowner privilege claim private landowning is necessary to liberty and/or prosperity. Hong Kong proves it isn't. In fact, quite the contrary. Hong Kong, with no private landowning, is consistently ranked the freest country in the world, and has been one of the most prosperous for several decades, even without any natural resources to speak of.

Quote:

---

I've spent a LOT of time in Hong Kong. I renew my Chinese visa there and conduct business there all the time. It just happens to be THE most expensive place to live in the world, whether "buying" (the LVT version) or renting by natural extension (given that even an LVT "purchase" can be sublet, or rented out).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

A "universal individual exemption" - with secure tenure? What does that mean, "secure tenure" based on a "universal individual exemption". How would that differ, in effect, from a "fee-simple" or similar title to land that was based only on such an exemption?

---

You would choose where you wanted to live in the market, much as people do now, but you wouldn't have to pay a purchase price for the land to a parasitic private landowner, and as long as you didn't use more than the exempt amount of desirable land, you wouldn't have to pay any land tax to government, either. The tax would only be levied on the amount of land value you excluded others from over and above the exemption amount.

Quote:

---

What do you mean by "universal individual exemption", "secure tenure", and specifically how would that play out in terms of taxes, regulatory controls, transfers (e.g., I want to move from Baltimore to Chicago) - and what circumstance could theoretically cause government to forcibly evict, or otherwise move someone with a "universal individual exemption"?

---

The universal individual land tax exemption would be the amount of land value considered necessary for a normal person to avail himself of the opportunities and advantages government, the community and nature provide -- i.e., to participate in society as a productive citizen. It would be analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption, except that it would be the exact same amount for every resident citizen. No adjustments for married couples, singles, children, etc. Families living in the same dwelling (i.e., on the same taxable land parcel) would pool their exemptions. I envision LVT as being primarily local, so the exemption amounts would likely be different in Chicago and Baltimore. Your tenure would be somewhat more secure than with a private landlord, as if the land rent increased, you would still have the option of just paying it. If you used more than the exempt amount of land and didn't pay the tax, you would likely be dispossessed in favor of someone able to use the land more productively and more willing to pay for the advantages of which he deprived others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy L

It has always worked, to the extent that it has been tried. ALWAYS.

---

Yes, until the feeders outnumber the producers. Then it all collapses like a clumsy house of cards. In the long term, it always fails. You need to start thinking one or more generations ahead. You will then outgrow your blissfully ignorant loathing of land ownership.

What happens to a familys land exemption when a child grows up and moves out? Would they be forced to tear down the portions of their home not included in the exempted land if they couldn't afford the tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

I have to repeat this - if Roy had excluded individuals - homesteads specifically - I'd be right on board.

---

Do you mean "homesteads" to denote initial appropriations, as private property, of land others had previously been at liberty to use without appropriating? Or to denote resident-owned dwellings? The latter are generally the subject of "homestead exemptions" from property taxes, while the former are frequent subjects for Helmuth's lies.

Quote:

---

I do not believe in property "rights", or rights of ownership of land for any but homesteaders. Individuals, as a matter of right. Not for governments, corporations, foreigners, fictitious collectives of any kind, and not as a commodity to be speculated on or traded in bulk or mass quantities. They really can all be driven out on a rail, as far as I am concerned, abolished (in the form of government) or taxed completely out of existence if they don't serve the public interest. But not sovereign individuals one to another - that truly is evil.

The only problems for me are where to VERY CAUTIOUSLY draw the line with individuals. If I see a Warren Buffet buying up an entire state, that bastard's got some 'splainin to do. If I see a farmer taking on a thousand acres, my only question is whether it's being farmed, or just farmed out. But if he's biting off what he can really chew, I don't have a problem with that. House flippers, land speculators, commercial developers, etc., can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Then it really is a question of whether it serves a public interest or not. They are acting as a matter of privilege in such cases, and I don't have a problem with slapping them into their places - especially if it affects the ability of the middle, working, and poorer classes to own land of their own.

---

Stephen, please consider the possibility that you actually want the results that LVT (with a uniform, universal individual exemption) would achieve, but just do not know enough economics to understand how LVT would achieve them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy L

Stephen, please consider the possibility that you actually want the results that LVT (with a uniform, universal individual exemption) would achieve, but just do not know enough economics to understand how LVT would achieve them.

---

Again, you (and Steven) are making this stuff up arbitrarily. Who cares if Buffet buys a bunch of property? He also has to bear the burden of opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eduardo89

What happens to a familys land exemption when a child grows up and moves out? Would they be forced to tear down the portions of their home not included in the exempted land if they couldn't afford the tax?

---

As improvements have no effect on their LVT liability, that would be a singularly stupid and futile response. So no wonder you thought of it so quickly.

If they couldn't afford the tax after deducting their lower pooled exemptions, they'd seek accommodation in a location better suited to their needs and means (hurray for the market!), or find some way to use the land more productively (they might know someone else who would like to live there, or a neighbor might want to use some of their vacant land for parking their RV, gardening, etc.). Lots of people are willing to pay for a room to sleep in, or room and board, and their exemptions would come with them. The homeowners might even put in a basement suite and become small-time landlords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

Again, you (and Steven) are making this stuff up arbitrarily.

---

Garbage.

Quote:

---

Who cares if Buffet buys a bunch of property?

---

Everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

Quote:

---

He also has to bear the burden of opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.

---

So does the purchaser of a slave -- except that land, by definition, needs no maintenance.