The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[MattintheCrown]

Not-so-subtle sleight-of-hand, but you said it entirely wrong.

Geoism makes privately-created value public. Remember? You listed "opportunities and amenities provided by the community", which includes a BUTTLOAD of privately owned, privately controlled value-providing entities, and simply made them "public". Tsk tsk, naughty naughty.

Nope. Those entities are part of society, and not landowners, qua landowners.

1. there's no sequestering of land
BUZZZZ...thanks for playing! Under LVT, if landownership titles are revoked, all land considered to be part of an LVT taxing jurisdiction are "sequestered" for that purpose.

Nope. Even you put "sequestered" in quotes, because you know it's a lie.

2. there's no wealth redistribution
Strike two. Whether you're for or against LVT, the fact that rents charged are a form of wealth redistribution is not at issue.

Only in the sense that the abolition of slavery redistributes wealth.

3. freedom from payments would simply be settling on land that has no rent
Strike three. Just like Roy, wherein HIS particular theoretical version of LVT would have all lands available and open for usage, with plenty of lands in which no rent payments are due. But I don't hear the opening up of all lands, the abolishing of zoning laws, or anything that would prohibit the state from making land artificially scarce, as ANY part of the LVT propaganda - except to make bogus claims that it's somehow not in the state's interest to do that.

In other words, you envision a plan which has nothing to do with what I'm advocating, and you criticize that. Hoo-rah.

[MattintheCrown]

They do.

Nope.

But if you really believe this claim, why are you living in a house/apartment/etc? Your claiming a living space is preventing the poor from using it! (Your hypocrisy is showing )

Duh, I have no choice.

[Steven Douglas]

Nope. Those entities are part of society, and not landowners, qua landowners.

Nice try. Private entities, which includes landowners and non-landowners, do not in any way become de facto "public entities" by virtue of the fact that they are part of society.

Nope. Even you put "sequestered" in quotes, because you know it's a lie.

You didn't even bother to look it up, which is why you are point blank off the deep end on this one. In law, sequestration specifically means the seizure of property, including land.

• The action of taking forcible possession of something; confiscation.
• The action of taking legal possession of assets until a debt has been paid or other claims have been met.
• The act of removing, separating, or seizing anything from the possession of its owner under process of law for the benefit of creditors or the state.

In other words, to revoke land titles for the purpose of administering seized lands for rent payments to the state, is to forcibly seize land for the benefit of the state. That fits precisely the definition of "sequestration". With or without quotes, which is irrelevant.

Only in the sense that the abolition of slavery redistributes wealth.

Slavery has to be the perfect corollary of Godwin's law for LVT threads. "As an online LVT discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving slavery approaches 1."

And that's not to say it's a fallacy or one-sided, mind you, because I fully equate LVT with slavery. Mine's a much easier argument, however, as I can show how sharecropping, making payments to the forever plantation-owning state is nothing but an extension of slavery, assuming the opportunity to purchase lands that are never subject to rents was removed. And don't tell me how the state at least "returns value". So did slave-owning plantation owners, who fed and housed their slaves, and provided all the wonderful plantation infrastructure. And don't tell me how under LVT someone can be free from paying plantation rents by simply moving to lands nobody else wants. That was true under a sharecropping regime.

Meanwhile, you are stuck with having to show (and really convince people) how rent payments charged on privately owned lands is a form of enslavement in a state where opportunity paths to private landownership (freedom from making rent payments to anyone) are wide open and readily available to everyone. Likewise under your paradigm, forcible exclusion from privately owned (read=plantation) lands equals slavery. In other words, not being allowed on the plantation somehow makes you a slave!

Talk about a tough sell. I can't even imagine the mental acrobatics required to sell those premises to yourself, let alone others.

In other words, you envision a plan which has nothing to do with what I'm advocating, and you criticize that. Hoo-rah.

Backwards. My criticism of something you are advocating is that it dismisses or ignores current and historical reality that is contradictory.

I could advocate a Supreme Benevolent Ruler as a perfect answer to everything, no LVT required. The Supreme Benevolent Ruler - our Deus Ex Machina who is there to save the day, would simply make sure that everything is absolutely fair and just for everyone. Simple! Perfect!

Now one could certainly object, saying that without checks and balances in place there is an historical likelihood of a Terrible Evil Tyrant cropping up instead. I could easily dismiss that criticism with your tactic, saying, "Why would he do that? It's not in the tyrant's interests! Why, don't you know, isn't it obvious, that a dictator will stand to gain much more if s/he is benevolent and fair? Don't you see that?!" And I would be right, of course, because that is most definitely true; not that the dictator would be fair, but only that it's in his interests to be.

Furthermore, I could dismiss that objection as a completely ridiculous straw man, since I am advocating a Supreme Benevolent Ruler, not a Terrible Evil Tyrant. Duh.

[heavenlyboy34]

Duh, I have no choice.

You absolutely have a choice. You could allow anyone who wants to squat at your domicile. Yet you don't. Why not practice what you preach?

[Roy L]

They do. But if you really believe this claim, why are you living in a house/apartment/etc? Your claiming a living space is preventing the poor from using it! (Your hypocrisy is showing )

Garbage. Built space is not the earth that nature provided for all. You know this.

[Roy L]

You absolutely have a choice. You could allow anyone who wants to squat at your domicile. Yet you don't. Why not practice what you preach?

He doesn't preach socialization of products of labor, and you know it.

[Steven Douglas]

Garbage. Built space is not the earth that nature provided for all. You know this.

Nature doesn't "provide for all". That's a decidedly human construct. Nature provides for "any", and "some", at times, and never in equal quantities, types, configurations or proportions. It provides plenty of ice and cold in Antarctica, plenty of sand and heat in the Sahara, and a variety of other plenties in other regions.

He doesn't preach socialization of products of labor, and you know it.

No, just socialization of land rent. Same as you.

Libertarians certainly don't preach socialization of products of labor OR ad valorem taxes of any kind. Both taxes are generally despised and rejected for different reasons. And rejecting both of these taxes is not a rejection of concept of revenue for funding necessary services that the people provide to themselves via their governments which act as agents and servants with limited delegated and enumerated powers on their behalf, to serve their common needs and interests.

Innat cool?

[MattintheCrown]

Nice try. Private entities, which includes landowners and non-landowners, do not in any way become de facto "public entities" by virtue of the fact that they are part of society.

Irrelevant. The question is not whether the value those entities produce goes to those entities or government: it's whether it goes to landowners or government. Remember? If anything, at least government represents those entities and will spend the money on goods and services which benefit them. The landowners don't, and won't.

You didn't even bother to look it up, which is why you are point blank off the deep end on this one. In law, sequestration specifically means the seizure of property, including land.

• The action of taking forcible possession of something; confiscation.
• The action of taking legal possession of assets until a debt has been paid or other claims have been met.
• The act of removing, separating, or seizing anything from the possession of its owner under process of law for the benefit of creditors or the state.

In other words, to revoke land titles for the purpose of administering seized lands for rent payments to the state, is to forcibly seize land for the benefit of the state. That fits precisely the definition of "sequestration". With or without quotes, which is irrelevant.

Of course, you just made up the revoking land titles bit.

Slavery has to be the perfect corollary of Godwin's law for LVT threads. "As an online LVT discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving slavery approaches 1."

It's a good comparison. The government steals from producers and gives to landowners.

And that's not to say it's a fallacy or one-sided, mind you, because I fully equate LVT with slavery. Mine's a much easier argument, however, as I can show how sharecropping, making payments to the forever plantation-owning state is nothing but an extension of slavery, assuming the opportunity to purchase lands that are never subject to rents was removed.

But somehow, the actual sharecropping that takes place under private land ownership is ok?

And don't tell me how the state at least "returns value". So did slave-owning plantation owners, who fed and housed their slaves, and provided all the wonderful plantation infrastructure. And don't tell me how under LVT someone can be free from paying plantation rents by simply moving to lands nobody else wants. That was true under a sharecropping regime.

I'll instead tell you that an exemption (or, if you like, a dividend) provides you with enough land to live on, free of charge. Unlike the current system, where you cannot get land to use free of charge: you are obliged to give your labor in exchange for the right to live. Slavery.

Meanwhile, you are stuck with having to show (and really convince people) how rent payments charged on privately owned lands is a form of enslavement in a state where opportunity paths to private landownership (freedom from making rent payments to anyone) are wide open and readily available to everyone.

The "opportunity paths" you speak of are nothing more than buying your freedom.

Likewise under your paradigm, forcible exclusion from privately owned (read=plantation) lands equals slavery. In other words, not being allowed on the plantation somehow makes you a slave!

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Talk about a tough sell. I can't even imagine the mental acrobatics required to sell those premises to yourself, let alone others.

That's rich. Yet, you somehow have to defend the Duke of Westminster! You dishonestly tried to weasel out of it by claiming that his titles aren't legitimate, but you must admit that you have no problem whatever with his relation to society. In fact, in your ideal world, there's theoretically no reason why one man ought not come to own the earth, and charge the rest of the world rent. And you call that justice.

Backwards. My criticism of something you are advocating is that it dismisses or ignores current and historical reality that is contradictory.

I could advocate a Supreme Benevolent Ruler as a perfect answer to everything, no LVT required. The Supreme Benevolent Ruler - our Deus Ex Machina who is there to save the day, would simply make sure that everything is absolutely fair and just for everyone. Simple! Perfect!

Now one could certainly object, saying that without checks and balances in place there is an historical likelihood of a Terrible Evil Tyrant cropping up instead. I could easily dismiss that criticism with your tactic, saying, "Why would he do that? It's not in the tyrant's interests! Why, don't you know, isn't it obvious, that a dictator will stand to gain much more if s/he is benevolent and fair? Don't you see that?!" And I would be right, of course, because that is most definitely true; not that the dictator would be fair, but only that it's in his interests to be.

Furthermore, I could dismiss that objection as a completely ridiculous straw man, since I am advocating a Supreme Benevolent Ruler, not a Terrible Evil Tyrant. Duh.

You just flat out refuse to know the nature of land monopoly. You continue to claim, falsely, that it would be in the government's interest to make land artificially scarce. But it wouldn't. That doesn't mean the government couldn't do something not in its interest, but so what?

[MattintheCrown]

You absolutely have a choice. You could allow anyone who wants to squat at your domicile. Yet you don't. Why not practice what you preach?

My domicile is a product of labor. The land I occupy, I have to pay some landowner to use. I'd rather that money was used to compensate those deprived of it, but that's beyond my control. I'm doing all I can to rectify the situation.

[Steven Douglas]

Irrelevant. The question is not whether the value the produce goes to those entities or government: it's whether it goes to landowners or government. Remember?

Never lost sight of it, and you're absolutely wrong. Those things you are calling "opportunities and amenities provided by the community" take on myriad forms, and are not exclusively enjoyed as land rent. The rain falls and the sun shines on everyone. Opportunities and amenities benefit everyone in the community in different ways; not just landowners, and for that matter not just members of the community. Pointing out increases in land rents is as incidental as it is an unfair isolation. Increases in labor and foreign commerce opportunities also abound, among other incidental perks in a thriving community, but I don't hear any argument from you that either of those should be taxed on that basis. So much the better for landowners (which, of course, anyone can become), but they are far from the only ones benefiting, and there is no rational reason that they should be singled out.

The state does not own the market, and has no claim on "opportunities and amenities" that are privately-provided-but-publicly-available.

If anything, at least government represents those entities and will spend the money on goods and services which benefit them. The landowners don't, and won't.

Again, you're still doing it from a paradigm that implies as its premise that the state is the owner of the market, and you're still talking about entities that are singled out for their particular benefits, as if no other value increases or other benefits existed for anyone else. Which means non-landowners get a completely free ride. This presupposes that landowners are truly a different class, and not just decision-makers as to their investments, in a state where the benefits of the rights of landownership are freely available to everyone - to the degree that they can and want to afford them.

Of course, you just made up the revoking land titles bit.

Are you suggesting that landownership and said titles would remain intact under LVT? If the state asked you for the pink slip on your car, which you own outright, and revised it so that it read, in effect, Rental Contract - your ownership title would be effectively REVOKED. No, not made up at all. Not even a little bit.

It's a good comparison. The government steals from producers and gives to landowners.

Only true when you're down the rabbit hole, with pretzeled logic in the Land of Opposites.

But somehow, the actual sharecropping that takes place under private land ownership is ok?

If other opportunities exist, especially pathways that lead to landownership? Of course. Then sharecropping is optional - a choice that anyone could make. Or not. If, on the other hand, pathways to landownership are artificially barred, or blocked, such that sharecropping becomes the only option - then no. But it's not that sharecropping would be wrong. Rather the artificial blockage from the liberty to have the opportunity to become a landowner - that would be the wrong.

I'll instead tell you that an exemption (or, if you like, a dividend) provides you with enough land to live on, free of charge.

Exemptions. For "enough land to live on" - but you're not talking about a fixed quantity of land - you're talking about an exemption amount, whatever that might be - one that would be established by the state or taxing jurisdiction, which could then be applied as an exemption to land rent payments. That's a nebulous Promise Plum not worth jumping for, and the camel's nose in the proverbial tent, as he promises to play nice if you'll agree. Like a mafia bribe - you'll get a little taste if you promise to keep your trap shut and go along with the plan.

Then there's the real world. Like North Dakota. Several Billion in surpluses from 30+ different revenue streams with 3 billion in a state savings account that grows every day, and $400 million set aside for property tax relief (to a VERY angry and stressed electorate) to help with a property tax that isn't even needed (or an income tax for that matter). And the relief that is set aside (but not allocated yet) will only keep the people at the angry level. Not the absolute OFF WITH THEIR HEADS level. Meanwhile, property values are on the rise. Not real. State assessed. Despite all the very vocal anger, assessments are going way up: 30% increase IN ONE YEAR for agricultural lands, residential property up 13 percent and commercial property up 20 percent - all so that local governments can increase spending without touching state surpluses.

Meanwhile, ad valorem exemptions are the root of all land and property tax abuse evils - because they aren't just given to individuals. Their real political corrupting power is when they are doled out to commercial interests - CRONY CAPITALISM. So-called "Enterprise Zones". Line up for your free ride - the state is the landlord, and can give exemptions away.

Nah. An exemption for "an amount enough to live on"? I'll pass. Just give me access to land I can own, and I'll pay for my own exemption, in a truly free market, to some former landowner as I take his place, thanks.

Unlike the current system, where you cannot get land to use free of charge: you are obliged to give your labor in exchange for the right to live. Slavery. The "opportunity paths" you speak of are nothing more than buying your freedom.

With landownership you are buying your freedom, and your security, both of which have costs. In this case, the cost is finite. There is such a thing as a final payment, after which you OWN your freedom, and your security. With LVT some are exempt (whatever that means), but nobody is ever truly free. That's why it's nothing but slavery - as a rule, all exceptions notwithstanding.

Likewise under your paradigm, forcible exclusion from privately owned (read=plantation) lands equals slavery. In other words, not being allowed on the plantation somehow makes you a slave!

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Under real slavery you're forced onto the plantation, forced to labor against your will for someone else's benefit. With an LVT view, someone who is excluded from the plantation is somehow "enslaved".

That's rich. Yet, you somehow have to defend the Duke of Westminster! You dishonestly tried to weasel out of it by claiming that his titles aren't legitimate, but you must admit that you have no problem whatever with his relation to society.

Wrong on all counts. His titles ARE legitimate. That has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is morally wrong in my estimation because they draw a lasso around vast areas of lands that include whole populations. Just...like...geolibs want to do. Like I said, just change the name from Duke of Westminster to "LVT Taxing Jurisdiction Inc." Thus, I equate geolibs with the Duke of Westminster. You want to do PRECISELY what he is doing, only you think, "at least it's for noble and just reasons".

In fact, in your ideal world, there's theoretically no reason why one man ought not come to own the earth, and charge the rest of the world rent. And you call that justice.

That would be you, not me. Remember? I'm not in favor of ANYONE, public or private, artificially cutting off opportunities for individual landownership and freedom from paying land rents to anyone. YOU ARE.

You just flat out refuse to know the nature of land monopoly.

I don't think you even know what the word monopoly means, to be honest. That showed when you wrote the very strange "land is a natural monopoly". I think you think monopoly is somehow synonymous with finite in quantity, or scarce. That may be wrong, but if it is right, that isn't it at all.

You continue to claim, falsely, that it would be in the government's interest to make land artificially scarce. But it wouldn't. That doesn't mean the government couldn't do something not in its interest, but so what?

I already answered this several pages back - you didn't respond then, but you're now making the same bogus claims I already responded to. Go back, read what I wrote (especially about the scarcity of actual people in a position to pay land rents, and the finite quantity of RIGHT NOW money available for land rents), and respond to and argue against the points I already made. Then we can have a discussion about it.