What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[redbluepill]

Seraphim, I would like it if you addressed the Paine quote.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Nobody ever disputed the Thomas Paine quote. I'll post it again: “it is the value of the improvements only, and not the Earth itself, that is individual property."

Is Thomas Paine wrong? If he is wrong in his assumption then what is the definition of individual property? Is property what we create through the fruit of our labor? If that is the case then how does an individual create land or its resources?

There isn't really any argument there because he is stating the obvious. Of course, he never gives any indication of how to determine the value... because it is wholly subjective. Being that it is subjective, there is no way of definitively creating a price for all intents and purposes. But your solution of the LVT gives the ability to the government to define an arbitrary price for purposes of defining a taxable amount. I think that is fundamentally unsound.

[redbluepill]

There isn't really any argument there because he is stating the obvious. Of course, he never gives any indication of how to determine the value... because it is wholly subjective. Being that it is subjective, there is no way of definitively creating a price for all intents and purposes. But your solution of the LVT gives the ability to the government to define an arbitrary price for purposes of defining a taxable amount. I think that is fundamentally unsound.

It is not subjective. Realtors assess value of land separate from improvements every single day. And for the third time, government does not determine the rent, the market does.

[redbluepill]

More evidence of Friedman's geoist leanings:

“Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman” — July 2006: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/ The following is an edited transcript of a conversation between Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn and Milton Friedman, which took place on May 22, 2006, at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in San Francisco, California, during a two-day Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar celebrating the 25th anniversary of Milton and Rose Friedman's book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. excerpt:

LA: Let me ask you about demographic trends. Columnist Mark Steyn writes that in ten years, 40 percent of young men in the world are going to be living in oppressed Muslim countries. What do you think the effect of that is going to be?

MF: What happens will depend on whether we succeed in bringing some element of greater economic freedom to those Muslim countries. Just as India in 1955 had great but unrealized potential, I think the Middle East is in a similar situation today. In part this is because of the curse of oil. Oil has been a blessing from one point of view, but a curse from another. Almost every country in the Middle East that is rich in oil is a despotism.

LA: Why do you think that is so?

MF: One reason, and one reason only — the oil is owned by the governments in question. If that oil were privately owned and thus someone's private property, the political outcome would be freedom rather than tyranny. This is why I believe the first step following the 2003 invasion of Iraq should have been the privatization of the oil fields. If the government had given every individual over 21 years of age equal shares in a corporation that had the right and responsibility to make appropriate arrangements with foreign oil companies for the purpose of discovering and developing Iraq's oil reserves, the oil income would have flowed in the form of dividends to the people — the shareholders — rather than into government coffers. This would have provided an income to the whole people of Iraq and thereby prevented the current disputes over oil between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, because oil income would have been distributed on an individual rather than a group basis.

LA: Many Middle Eastern societies have a kind of tribal or theocratic basis and long-held habits of despotic rule that make it difficult to establish a system of contract between strangers. Is it your view that the introduction of free markets in such places could overcome those obstacles?

MF: Eventually, yes. I think that nothing is so important for freedom as recognizing in the law each individual's natural right to property, and giving individuals a sense that they own something that they're responsible for, that they have control over, and that they can dispose of.

[libertybrewcity]

i'd rather own my land than rent it.

[Wesker1982]

Correct answer. Taxes should be based on consumption, in order to encourage savings and capital formation.

Is a Tax on Consumption Possible?

[helmuth_hubener]

I know that many people here would like to see all taxes abolished. I'm wondering if you think LVT is an improvement over traditional property taxes or other taxes. As long as a government exists, what would be the most liberty-friendly way of funding that government? Does LVT have a place in funding local governments, for example?

Phew, I thought your opening post was going to be a set up for Invasion of the Georgists! From this post and looking at your posting history, I see that's not the case.

Charles Adams gave a whole series of lectures available on http://Mises.org on this very thing: taxation, how does it affect things, what are the least destructive methods of taxation, etc. The Greeks thought a lot about it, too. The Greeks figured that the more indirect the tax, the better, while direct taxation (like an income tax, estate tax, or property tax) was inimical to liberty.

The Greeks were good thinkers and we ought to consider what they had to say. Certainly we had more of a spirit of liberty and independence when the federal government was funded with tariffs and excise taxes (which are indirect taxes).

However, ultimately Adams admits that the rate of taxation is a huge factor, maybe even more so than the method. He gives the example of when he used to live in a country with a poll tax (one of those evil direct taxes), and he absolutely loved it. The rate was so low, it was wonderful. Yes, it was direct taxation, but you could pay this small amount of money and boom, you're taken care of for the year. No IRS, no withholding, no nothing.

I personally think a poll tax would be a fantastic way to go, as long as it was literally a tax on going to the polls. Make the law: thou shalt pay $1000 per year if you want to vote in the elections. Otherwise, if you don't pay, you can't vote that year. That's well-nigh voluntary. If I don't want to pay taxes, I can't vote (over-rated anyway) but I am otherwise left alone. No Tax-Evasion Prison, no IRS spying on bank accounts, no nothing. Plus the people paying for it make the decisions, and that's only fair.

[helmuth_hubener]

I say: eliminate all taxes,

Screech!! Stop that sentence right there! Do not proceed any further. Nothing you could follow those words with could possibly improve the sentence. Just stop while you're ahead and I will say Amen, Hallelujah, right on Brother JackieDan!

[heavenlyboy34]

The OP's idea is more reasonable, moral, and Constitutional than the Income tax, but I still say that people should avail themselves of the IRS' "patriotic donation" program instead of insisting on any sort of tax. Tariffs are okay too, IMO.

[helmuth_hubener]

What makes it your land?

The life and liberty that I put into making it mine. I worked and saved, using my time, talents, and energy, and thus was, after a long time, able to trade someone for the land. To rob me of my property, to claim it isn't mine, is to claim that portion of my past which I traded for it was not or is not mine. It is to rob me of years of my past, just as to murder me is to rob me of (potentially) years of my future, and to enslave me is to rob me of my present. All these acts are fundamentally evil and anti-life.

That is why it is mine. I came by it honestly and upstandingly. It would be dishonest and despicable to rob me of it.