What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[wizardwatson]

Two questions.

First, how do we determine the value of land after the nationalization of it? Assuming we implemented LVT immediately, we obviously have current market prices to determine the value. Then I'm assuming (unlike how it works in the market) the rental value will be a fixed percentage of the land value per year, which I'm assuming would be uniform throughout. But how do you "reassess" values after something like severe currency inflation? How do you determine the value of a plot that a speculator doesn't want anymore because the rental value siphons off all the value of the property? Are people still going to buy land even though its essentially in a state of perpetual mortgage?

This is my basic problem when understanding how this would actually work. Yeah, you can determine "relative" values like saying plot A is 3 times as valuable as plot B but how do you determine the baseline? If after nationalization the buying and selling essentially stop, what mechanism to you use to tie the rental values to something that has a market value?


Second, would there be enough value collected as rent to fund our 3.5 trillion dollar federal budget? If so how can we know this? Anyone have any idea what the 'rental' value of all land in the US is?


There's a lot of intellectual football on the thread but I'm interested in the details of how the Georgist system would operate. I understand the Georgist position of 'why' its not unjust to implement this system, but I don't understand the 'how'.

[redbluepill]

Incorrect. You and I do have the right to purchase and own land. This has been demonstrated by Locke, Mises, Schaffer, Rothbard, Hume, Blackstone, and numerous others.

You mean the John Locke who said, "God gave the world in common to all mankind.... When the 'sacredness' of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property."

You mean the William Blackstone who said, "The earth, and all things therein, are the general property of all man-kind, from the immediate gift of the Creator."

I do know that Rothbard and Mises opposed Georgist views. Hayek also disagreed but he did consent that urban land was 'unique' and even stated:

"If the factual assumptions on which It Is based were correct, i.e., if it were possible to distinguish dearly between the value of 'the permanent and indestructibte powers of the soil,' on the one hand, and, on the other, the value due to the two different kinds of improvement - that due to communal efforts and that due to the efforts of the individual owner - the argument for its adoption would be very strong."
~The Constitution of Liberty

Look at what you missed by selectively quoting Adam Smith:
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all." (from Wealth Of Nations)

Ummm, whats your point with this quote? Do you even know what he means by 'property'?

[redbluepill]

Quoting 3 classical liberals doesn't represent the opinions of all of them.

I have provided several others throughout this thread while you have made false assumptions about several of these economists and philosophers.

[Roy L]

First, how do we determine the value of land after the nationalization of it?

At that point exchange value would no longer mean much, so market rental value would be used.

Assuming we implemented LVT immediately, we obviously have current market prices to determine the value.

Right, and current exchange prices can be combined with current rental prices to determine a relationship between exchange value and rental value for each market.

Then I'm assuming (unlike how it works in the market) the rental value will be a fixed percentage of the land value per year, which I'm assuming would be uniform throughout.

No, once the rental values were initialized based on current data, exchange value would be pretty much ignored.

But how do you "reassess" values after something like severe currency inflation?

Look at market rents.

How do you determine the value of a plot that a speculator doesn't want anymore because the rental value siphons off all the value of the property?

That would ideally apply to all land: the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners would be eliminated, and thus also the land's exchange value, which is simply the discounted current value of the future subsidy.

Are people still going to buy land even though its essentially in a state of perpetual mortgage?

Do people rent land?

The Empire State Building is built on rented land, and all of Hong Kong is built on rented land, so that answers that question.

Yeah, you can determine "relative" values like saying plot A is 3 times as valuable as plot B but how do you determine the baseline?

From the statistical relationship between exchange value and rental value in each market.

If after nationalization the buying and selling essentially stop,

As allocative efficiency would be improved, there would probably be even more buying and selling, just at greatly reduced exchange prices.

what mechanism to you use to tie the rental values to something that has a market value?

Rental value IS a market value.

Second, would there be enough value collected as rent to fund our 3.5 trillion dollar federal budget? If so how can we know this? Anyone have any idea what the 'rental' value of all land in the US is?

There is much disagreement on this question, even among Georgists. Some say the abolition of other taxes would make land use so economically advantageous that it would raise rents enough to pay for all of government (Smith argued that all taxes come out of land rent anyway). Others believe rents would adjust, but the aggregate total would be about the same. And a few think that releasing all the land speculators are hoarding would flood the market, greatly reducing rents. Personally, I don't think it matters much because whichever way it turns out, it will benefit everyone but the top few percent of landowners. Most people will be FAR better off. If more revenue is needed, there are unjust privileges other than land titles that can be taxed.

[Roy L]

Texas Property Tax Code does state it is an ad valorem Land value tax. Improvements are included in the appraisal method.

A land value tax ignores improvements, so no matter what the law CLAIMS the tax is, it is not a land value tax

Land value itself alone not including improvement varies from market value to location.

Care to try saying that in English?

When I say you are penalized from beautification, it isn't because you make the land look pretty. I mean you discourage increasing value of your property improvements. Adding a pool, second story, additions (YES THEY ARE TAXED), and etc.

Then it is not a land value tax. Full stop.

[Roy L]

I do know how they're established.

No, you very obviously do not.

The ones that actually exist in the real world were established by one group of people conquering and subjugating another group of people.

Many were, but not all. Do you know what a "vote" is?

But I don't see how that set of events gives any legitimacy to the claim of those in the former group to have the right to tax those in the latter group.

First you need to find a willingness to know the fact that governments are not all identical.

Maybe in some imaginary world it is.

That would be the world of the Declaration of Independence.

But in the real world the government's job is to maintain and increase the power the rulers have over those they rule.

OK, so you refuse to know the difference between the governments of Switzerland and Swaziland. Fine. Thanks for playing.

So then all I have to do to attain the right to own land and rent it out to people is call myself a government?

You can never obtain a right to own land, as that inherently violates others' rights to liberty. Government merely administers the possession and use of land, like a trustee. Trustees do not own the trust assets. If the people empower and trust you to secure and reconcile their rights, then you can do that.

It has become obvious to me that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid knowing the facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

[wizardwatson]

But how do you "reassess" values after something like severe currency inflation?

Look at market rents.

Are you saying that there would still be a market for rents, in the sense that people would still be buying selling land even though all the geo-rent is being taken from it?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around the mechanics of how the government would operate such a system. That wealth and want site is a good resource (I think redbluepill posted the link). I'll also check out that Hong Kong system.

I applaud both you and redbluepill for your contribution to this thread. I studied it a while back and had numerous arguments with people about is as you guys are doing. And sidenote: if you think people here are against this idea, try going on the Mises forum, when I tried debating it there never seen so much stubbornness to even considering the idea. So +rep to you and redbluepill! (You guys have obviously invested a lot of typing in this thread)

But I never could take it to the level of explaining the specifics of how the appraising and all that would work. I still can't wrap my head around it totally but that wealth and want website has a lot of stuff I haven't read so far. Subscribing to this thread and will come up with more questions as I can think of them. Thanks for the input.

[Roy L]

Do people have a right to use locked doors to prevent others from accessing certain land or not?

Only if they make just compensation.

If the answer is no, then how else do they prevent them access to people and the products of their labor?

As access to the people and products inside is not something others would otherwise have, no compensation for its deprivation is warranted.

[redbluepill]

Are you saying that there would still be a market for rents, in the sense that people would still be buying selling land even though all the geo-rent is being taken from it?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around the mechanics of how the government would operate such a system. That wealth and want site is a good resource (I think redbluepill posted the link). I'll also check out that Hong Kong system.

I applaud both you and redbluepill for your contribution to this thread. I studied it a while back and had numerous arguments with people about is as you guys are doing. And sidenote: if you think people here are against this idea, try going on the Mises forum, when I tried debating it there never seen so much stubbornness to even considering the idea. So +rep to you redbluepill! (You guys have obviously invested a lot of typing in this thread)

But I never could take it to the level of explaining the specifics of how the appraising and all that would work. I still can't wrap my head around it totally but that wealth and want website has a lot of stuff I haven't read so far. Subscribing to this thread and will come up with more questions as I can think of them. Thanks for the input.

It wasn't long ago I was in the same boat as you wizard. In college I realized I was a libertarian. By default I read a lot quite a bit on Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. But when I started reading Henry George it was like all the pieces fell into place. Not saying he was infallible, but he was pretty much on target.

And yeah, going into the Mises forums and posting something on George is like jumping into a lion's den. The vitriol you will experience over there is astounding.

[Roy L]

1) Did these Indian tribes have property taxes?

Of course not. As I said, you are being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid knowing the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

Since you have claimed that it is necessary to have property taxes in order for people not to own land,

<sigh> At this point, you have exactly two choices: you can provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I made that claim, or you can admit that you are just flat-out lying about what I plainly wrote. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.

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.

then either they did have property taxes, or they did believe in land ownership, or else your premise about property taxes is wrong.

The premise in question is an outright fabrication on your part, as you are well aware.

2) Did these Indian tribes ever use any means to exclude people from any parcel of land?

Of course. They often contended with rival tribes over the boundaries of communal territories.

Such means would include the existence of any structures, either permanent or movable, which they understood to be any person's or family's exclusive property. Since, if they did have such things, they did, de facto, have land ownership.

No, that's just another dishonest fabrication on your part. Respect for temporary enclosure of space by a dwelling in no way implies ownership of the land under it. There was no notion that the land would still be exclusive to the current user after the dwelling structure was moved or abandoned.

You are employing every dishonest rationalization you can contrive in order to avoid knowing the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil. Every apologist for landowner privilege does the same thing, without exception.