Opportunities and amenities provided by the community are one of the sources of land rent. They're why people are willing to pay money for use of land. What part of that do you not understand?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.
They show up as land rent. Hello?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.
Except, of course, for the fact that they get to charge the community for those benefits.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.
But the community does have a claim on them, and the only way to recover them for the community is via the community's agent: government.The state does not own the market, and has no claim on "opportunities and amenities" that are privately-provided-but-publicly-available.
That's a lie. I've never said or implied any such thing.Again, you're still doing it from a paradigm that implies as its premise that the state is the owner of the market,
Also a lie. I've never said nor implied that, either. What I said was that landowners are privileged to collect value created by society.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.
No, of course they don't. They have to pay landowners to live and work there. How else would they get access to the benefits?Which means non-landowners get a completely free ride.
No, that's also false. It supposes, correctly, that landownership is a privilege.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.
Land ownership is contingent upon payment of property taxes right now. I know of nowhere on earth where land is allocated according to your idiotic ideals.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.
Not if it's all you can afford. Many were sharecroppers their whole lives, and not by choice. It's still slavery if you have a "pathway" to buy your freedom.If other opportunities exist, especially pathways that lead to landownership? Of course. Then sharecropping is optional - a choice that anyone could make. Or not.
Nope. Not paying for a privilege is wrong.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.
What a stupid, nonsensical response.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.
It's probably going up because greedy speculators think they can get the tax burden reduced or removed entirely.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.
It can also round up all the Jews and gas them. So what?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.
Fact: you have to buy your freedom in your system, but it's guaranteed in mine.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.
Right. But whereas government actually secures your freedom and security, you pay a landlord. You see that? Not only are you making a one-time payment for ongoing benefits, you're also paying the wrong party.With landownership you are buying your freedom, and your security, both of which have costs.
The payment is finite, but the costs are ongoing. Which is a reason a one-off payment for land is unjust.In this case, the cost is finite.
Nope. You get enough land to live on free of charge. You pay for any extra you may want.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.
This continues to make no sense.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".
The Duke of Westminster pockets the money. That's not what I want to do. I want to spend it on services and infrastructure that benefit the community that creates it. Government extends a train and the rents in the serviced area rise? Rents are spent on funding the train.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".
I have no idea why you morally object to the Duke though. There's no reason you should. What's puzzling is why you believe that the Duke of Westminster, or any landowner anywhere, deserves to pocket the value created by the community and government.
Who said anything about cutting anything off? Using your theory, a man could theoretically buy up all the land. Sure, he could sell some of it off, but he doesn't have to. It's up to him.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.
But then, that's pretty much the end-game of your system, isn't it? If there's no tax due on land, the best way to get rich is to own as much of it as possible. And the more you own, the more you can afford. Result? Concentration of all land into the hands a few. Feudalism. If you own all of England, why sell the land off? Just have a handful of loyal lords, who charge rent to serfs.
You're simply advocating feudalism. Obviously, violence and economic stagnation would result.
If you want to dredge it up again, I'll refute it.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.
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.