Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1050

Thread: The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

    As the other thread was getting over long with too much flaming. I though it best to start another. I have put my posts in first.

    Land Value Taxes create wealth, it promotes it, especially when income tax is reduced or eliminated, as in dynamic Hong Kong and Taiwan, etc, All implementations around the world have done so. It is well proven not a wild theory. LVT dragged Taiwan from a backward agricultural country to a dynamic high-tech world force.

    We stupidly tax a man's labor via income tax. This is retrograde, as it prevents enterprise from flourishing. It prevents money from circulating. Income Tax makes him poorer taking a part of his income at source - income tax was a temporary tax to fund the British Army and Navy in the Napoleonic wars which Tory Land owners got made permanent to push taxes from their lands onto the people. The USA followed in 1913? Currently wealth laying idle, locked up in land, is not taxed. We tax the fruits of the the labors of those who need least to be taxed - the wealth creators. That is why most wealth of a society ends up in the hands of the top few percent.

    The top 1% in the USA own more wealth than the bottom 90%. That indicates there is a systemic failure in the economy. LVT will balance it in a fair way. Yet it does not change business behavior. It can work with any ism, probably apart from North Korea. LVT prevent boom and busts as it pegs land speculation. Land speculation was the root cause of the 1929 and 2008 world-wide crashes.



    Economist Fred Harrison....

    "Any good economist will tell you, as people's real disposable incomes rise, that money ends up in one place, and one place only, the LAND MARKET. As there is growth land values rise, and it should rise. Except, the problem occurred when that increase in value went into private pockets instead of going into services: highways, hospitals, schools and so on, that created that value in the first place"
    ..
    ..
    "This is the sources of our problem, not bankers, big bonuses, sub-prime mortgages in America and the other excuses they have. This is the heart of the problem of the market economy, we have to address it. There has to be political consensus, there has to consensus, with no body playing party politics"


    The above is at. 3 min 35 secs

    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 05:48 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    There are shanty towns in the USA again as foreclosure has thrown millions out of their homes. Many shanty towns overlook empty homes.



    LVT would have prevented all this. The English economist clearly states the case.

  4. #3
    Firstly, Geoism is not compatible with anarchism. It rolls back the state for sure and reduces the state in our affairs. Geoism can fit into any political ism as I have previously stated on this thread.

    "George's blend of radicalism and conservatism can puzzle one, until it is seen as a reconciliation of the two. The system is internally consistent, but defies conventional stereotypes."
    - Professor Mason Gaffney (US economist)

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
    Likewise I do not believe my government should own, control or tax land that is private.
    LVT does no such thing. LVT reclaims community created wealth that soaks into land. This is basic economics. You have to understand where the value in land comes from - it didn't drop in from the sky. LVT as the Single Tax leaves private wealth in private hands - no Income Tax, Sales Tax, Property tax on your buildings, inheritance tax, etc. Read my previous posts in this thread on this point.

    Whether you like it or not, the state ultimately owns all the land. This is non-point in LVT and a detraction. What the community does with LVT is reclaim community created wealth while leaving private wealth in private hands. Very Republican. LVT as the Single Tax, no other taxes, is not rent to the government. Currently the state taxes your home, bricks & wood. Make it larger and they tax you more. This is ludicrous. Do you want them to tax your washing machine as well?

    BTW, you have to pay for community services wherever you live, unless you live on Mars.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 06:25 AM.

  5. #4

    Geonomics is an economic philosophy and ideology that holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all.


    Land Value Taxation does not tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth soaks into the land and crystalizes as land values - that is where land values come from. This is economics, not an opinion. Land Value Tax merely reclaims that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized. It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services.


    Many Geoists observe two prime negative points of current taxation in modern states:
    • Privately created wealth is socialized - via Income Tax, sales tax, etc.
    • Socially created wealth is privatized - community created land values are extracted by individuals and organizations.
    The Geoists rightly argue the opposite should be the case in that a Single Tax using only Land Value Tax will:
    • Socialize socially created wealth - socially created land values are taxed and used for community revenues.
    • Privatize privately created wealth - no Income Tax is levied, hence people keep the fruits of their labor.
    Geoists view the Single Tax (no Income Tax, tax on buildings, sales tax, etc) as only using socially created wealth to fund social and state services, with an individual retaining 100% the fruits of their labor. This appeals to many across the political spectrum.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 06:17 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89
    Wouldn't it be easier (and more fair) just to have absolutely no taxes on property?
    Yes, if the property is just the bricks and wood, the building (the CAPITAL). The land (LAND & RESOURCES) is separate. LVT reclaims community created wealth that soaked into the land. Value the landowner never created as the community did. The building depreciates in value like a car. The Land appreciates as it is inelastic.

    LVT is easy to collect, as land's location is known to the inch. It cannot be taken off-shore. So an Athens mansion, or one in NY, would have to pay the tax. LVT is very cheap to collect.

    LVT is known as the Single Tax. Only one tax, no enterprise killing Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, etc). LVT is a misnomer it is really a site reclaim levy.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 06:14 AM.

  7. #6
    Johannesburg, South Africa has no tax on buildings. The entire property tax is on land. Mason Gaffney, a highly respected land economist and Professor of Economics at UC Riverside, visited Johannesburg. This is what he said about it.

    "The miracle of Johannesburg: Jo-burg is a Bootstrap City. It should have died when its gold mines played out, like a proper mining boomtown; instead it remains as the economic capital of its nation and half a continent."Johannesburg defies most laws of urban economics, e.g. that mines create no great cities. Explainers still site the mines, but its mines have played out; it should now be a ghost town. It has no harbor, no water transportation, nor even any gravity water supply. It is, in fact, on a ridge top, the Rand or "reef," at an elevation of 5,000 ft. Unlike Chicago or Boston, it has no sunburst of rail lines, except perhaps what it has attracted itself. It is "on the main rail line," Explainers say, but so are 1000 miles of other sites. The natural site lacks outstanding amenities, and certainly can't hold a candle to Cape Town. Jo-burg has no governmental economic base. Surrounding farmland is poor.

    Why Johannesburg? Why is it the largest city, the center of finance, industry, commerce, and international air travel? As a public finance economist I may overvalue incentive taxation, but Jo-burg has it. The property tax is on site value only, and at a high rate: they tell me it is 4%. This is what makes Jo-burg distinctive. Challenge and response: Jo-burg had to do something right in order to survive, and that is what it did. It not only survived, it became and remains Number One. Give me a better explanation and I'll back off. I haven't heard one yet."

    Unhappily, the ANC forced Jo-Burg, against its will, to drop taxation on land values (1918 to 1996). The city is now mired in disinvestment and unemployment. Similar situations occurred in Pittsburgh (Land Value Tax (LVT) dropped in 1990), NYC (LVT was dropped in the late 1930s) and declined until WW2 brought full employment.

    However these examples do show the stark difference of the before and after. But the detractors will no doubt blame the transition from apartite and the world slumps (2008 and the 1930s) but not the real reason for the decline - the removal of LVT.

    Mason's observations are spot on. Jo-Burg is in a God forsaken part of South Africa and had no right to be the economic super-city for all Southern Africa below the equator. Nothing was going for it at all. It comes across as an artificial creation I suppose like Brasilia. Mason hit the nail on the head in defining the success of this anomaly. Land Value Tax (LVT) can makes cities prosper where they have no right to.

    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 06:24 AM.

  8. #7
    Phony baloney.

    Colorblind private individual land ownership without property tax creates the most secure prosperous societies. Sure the State virtually starves and that is liberating.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  9. #8
    How Harrisburg in Rust Belt PA, USA was transformed through a Land Value Tax

    In the United States, many local authorities, including Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, operate a so-called split-rate tax system, in which buildings and land are taxed separately. Some bias it towards buildings and others towards land. The evidence is that the more it is biased towards land, the more this benefits the local economy – which is what would be predicted by the theory of land value tax – because the more that land is taxed the more this provides an incentive to invest capital on the land in the form of buildings and other economic activities. That is precisely what happened in Harrisburg after the city authorities more than doubled the tax rate on land, while reducing the rate on buildings, such that the rate for land was three times that for buildings.

    In 1982, before the change, Harrisburg, with a population of 52,000, was listed as the second most run-down city in the US. Since then, following the change, empty sites and buildings have been re-developed, with the number of vacant sites by 2004 down by 85 per cent. The city authorities have issued over 32,000 building permits, representing nearly $4 billion of new investment – nearly 2,000 were issued in 2004 alone. Over 5,000 housing units have been newly constructed or rehabilitated, and the number of businesses has jumped from 1,908 to 8,864, with unemployment down by 19 per cent. Furthermore, crime has fallen by 58 per cent, and the number of fires has been reduced by 76 per cent, which the authorities say is due to more employment opportunities, and the elimination of derelict sites, making vandalism less likely.

    They list 40 other positive benefits, including much improved public amenities. More recently, the bias towards tax on land is now six to one compared with three to one originally. This will likely further enhance the trends from which the city has already benefited. Meanwhile, the heightened economic activity has increased public revenues, not only from land and buildings, but also from other taxes, thus benefiting public services. And it has increased quite dramatically both the value of land and that of buildings, from around $400 million in 1982, in today’s prices, to $1.7 billion now. This has enabled the authorities to reduce the rate of tax on both land and buildings. Not surprisingly, this system of taxation has been politically popular, with Mayor Steven Reed Jr being re-elected continuously since 1982.

    One constraint has been the fact that 47% of the land in Harrisburg is occupied by state, federal, educational and charitable institutions, which, anomalously, are exempt by State law from property taxes. However, some of that lost revenue has been clawed back through charges on water, gas and electricity supplies, which are publicly owned – perhaps another lesson that we can learn from Harrisburg.
    Meanwhile, another city in Pennsylvania, namely Pittsburgh, has gone in the opposite direction with its split-rate tax system. In 2000, it reduced the rate of tax on land to the same lower rate as that for buildings. Voters were persuaded that they would pay less tax. In fact, for most, taxes have increased, because the council has had to raise the tax rate on buildings to make up for the revenue lost through lowering the tax on land. Within just the first two years, it led to new construction falling by 21 per cent, and businesses moving out of town on a regular basis – which, again, is what would be predicted by land tax theory.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    [INDENT]How Harrisburg in Rust Belt PA, USA was transformed through a Land Value Tax
    In 1982, before the change, Harrisburg, with a population of 52,000, was listed as the second most run-down city in the US. Since then, following the change, empty sites and buildings have been re-developed, with the number of vacant sites by 2004 down by 85 per cent. The city authorities have issued over 32,000 building permits, representing nearly $4 billion of new investment – nearly 2,000 were issued in 2004 alone. Over 5,000 housing units have been newly constructed or rehabilitated, and the number of businesses has jumped from 1,908 to 8,864, with unemployment down by 19 per cent. Furthermore, crime has fallen by 58 per cent, and the number of fires has been reduced by 76 per cent, which the authorities say is due to more employment opportunities, and the elimination of derelict sites, making vandalism less likely.
    I love how he use of the worst run cities in the whole country as the example of his thoughts. Perhaps he were trying to prove that his theory doesn't work?

    The government leaders of Harrisburg destroyed the city and then asked a judge to agree that the city could file for bankruptcy. The judge said no, no matter what the leaders of Harrisburg do, they will not be able to fix the city. The leaders of the city don't have the ability to do anything right except destroy things.

    Judge dismisses Harrisburg, PA, bankruptcy filing
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AM2IL20111123
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    I love how he use of the worst run cities in the whole country as the example of his thoughts. Perhaps he were trying to prove that his theory doesn't work?
    Actually, Harrisburg was doing fine with LVT until the totally unrelated incinerator problem emerged, and the incinerator problem is a creation of the EPA, not the government of Harrisburg. Harrisburg spent a fortune on the incinerator to meet EPA requirements, and then the EPA changed the requirements, leaving Harrisburg with an expensive incinerator it couldn't use.
    The government leaders of Harrisburg destroyed the city
    Flat false. The city's main problem is the incinerator debt, for which the EPA bears primary responsibility.
    and then asked a judge to agree that the city could file for bankruptcy. The judge said no, no matter what the leaders of Harrisburg do, they will not be able to fix the city. The leaders of the city don't have the ability to do anything right except destroy things.
    Your ignorance of the Harrisburg case appears to be quite comprehensive.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Phony baloney.

    Colorblind private individual land ownership without property tax creates the most secure prosperous societies. Sure the State virtually starves and that is liberating.
    This.

    /thread

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Colorblind private individual land ownership without property tax creates the most secure prosperous societies.
    Nope. Never has, never will.
    Sure the State virtually starves and that is liberating.
    Ask the Somalis how liberated they feel. "Oh, joy, we get to be robbed by pirates!"

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Phony baloney.

    Colorblind private individual land ownership without property tax creates the most secure prosperous societies. Sure the State virtually starves and that is liberating.
    The "phony baloney" intro to the statement is ironic, as it describes the empty assertion above. Various indices of economic freedom rank Hong Kong as the freest economy in the world, followed by Singapore and Taiwan competing for second place. Hong Kong gets more of its revenue from land rents than any other economy in the world, followed by Singapoare and Taiwan.

    New Hampshire was chosen by American Libertarians as the "free state," to which libertarians are encouraged to migrate. New Hampshire gets two thirds of its state and local revenue from real estate taxes. No other state gets more than half from real estate.

    There is a direct correlation between the amount of taxes collected on real estate and the stability of housing prices. Far more people are losing their homes to banks where there have been housing bubbles, and housing bubbles have been worst where real estate taxes have been lowest.

    Prior to a shift to a more right-wing "neolibertarian" approach, almost all libertarians challenged the legitimacy of state-issued titles to land. Property must flow from liberty for liberty to flow from property.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Sullivan View Post
    ...housing bubbles have been worst where real estate taxes have been lowest.
    Source?

    Even if that was true, correlation does not equal causation. All you really showed is that real estate taxes are a strong disincentive for investment (and improvement), because you're just paying for something the government is going to claim ownership to and rent back to you.

    Hey, but there is an upside to a housing bubble crash for tax collectors everywhere, because while the Fed-engineered housing bubble produced a windfall for property tax collectors, those same collectors and assessors are loathe to have that revenue stream collapse along with the real estate bubble. In California, the tax is based on whatever you paid, plus any improvement assessments that only add to you already pay. It's not until the next owner pays that there's a reduction in taxes - the person holding undervalued property is stuck with overvalued taxes.

    When the housing bubble collapsed, property taxes tended to stay where they were at, or even continued (in the case of North Dakota and many other places) to grow in many places, as if nothing special happened to the housing market.

    What a nice bubble-collapse proof tent that is. So much "stability" - for them.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-15-2012 at 10:46 AM.

  17. #15
    A differentiation must be made between property (CAPITAL) and land (LAND & its RESOURCES). Taxing the property, the building, is like taxing a washing machine - ludicrous, yet that is what happens.

    Community services (inc the army, police, etc) have to be paid for. It is best to pay it out of wealth created by the community - via community created land values - and leave the individuals wealth alone.

    The USA is not an economically secure society as the 2008 crash demonstrated. The USA has shanty towns.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 06:28 AM.

  18. #16

    We pay TWICE for community services

    An enterprising, productive man goes to a realtors office in a town wanting to build a factory, so needs some land for the factory.

    The agent says:
    "I have the ideal plot". She takes him 45 minutes out of town via a fast highway, 30 minutes down a small road, 10 minutes across track and points to the land surrounded by scrub. "There it is", she states, "$5,000".
    He said:
    "there is nothing here. No electricity, roads, water, buildings, people, nothing".
    She says
    "I have another the size you want." They drive back to town.


    The plot is in town near to:

    • A rapid-transit rail station,
    • A fast road with modern tramcars on it,
    • Bus routes,
    • A housing estate
    • Great schools,
    • A world renowned hospital,
    • Excellent university,
    • Police station - Crime is low because of the excellent well funded police force,
    • Fire House - the fire department is top rated and swift to emergencies,
    • All utility services are adjacent to the plot, etc.
    • A pool of high skills - skills base of the people is very high,


    She says:
    "it has all the top class services you need here".
    He says:
    "ideal, wonderful, who do I make the $5,000 out to?".
    She says:
    "it is $1,005,000, as it has all the top class services".
    He said:
    "It is the same size as the first plot. But mmm, well OK, I'll pay that, as it is ideal, who are the people, and their addresses, I send the cheques to who provide these wonderful top-class service?".
    She says:
    "no you have to pay the $1,005,000 to a man who lives near the beach in the Florida and lays on it most of the day".
    He says:
    "well its the same size as the out of town $5,000 plot, so I will send him $5,000 and cheques to those who provide the top-class services".
    She says:
    "no all has to go to the landowner laying on the beach in Florida".
    He says:
    "how do these people pay to provide all these services then?"
    She says:
    "well you pay Property Tax, Income Tax, Sales Tax on the goods you sell, tax to the council and government and all sorts of other fees and taxes, and they provide the services".
    He replies:
    "well I pay for these services twice then, that doesn't sound fair at all".
    She says:
    "well yes, you pay once to the landowning man laying on the beach in Florida and again to the authorities. He does not pay taxes on this plot as it is not used".


    Land Valuation Tax (LVT) on the urban plot would pay for the services. The value is higher on the urban plot than the out of town plot which will pay less LVT as its value is less because of the lack of demand because of no services.

    The winner is the free-loading landowner who got rich in his sleep and laying on the beach, who paid sweet nothing for the services that made his land valuable. The man of enterprise and production is paying twice.

    Next time you buy land or a house, think of that. It is not an American thing to pay twice for something.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 07:24 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    An enterprising, productive man goes to a realtors office in a town wanting to build a factory, so needs some land for the factory.
    The agent says "I have the ideal plot". She takes him 45 minutes out of town via a fast highway, 30 minutes down a small road, 10 minutes across track and points to the land surrounded by scrub. "There it is", she states, "$5,000".
    He said "there is nothing here. No electricity, roads, water, buildings, people, nothing".
    She says "I have another the size you want." They drive back to town.
    The plot is in town next to a rapid-transit rail station, a fast road with modern tramcars on it, bus routes, a housing estate nearby with great schools, a world renowned hospital, excellent university, crime is low because of the excellent well funded police force, the fire department is top rated and swift to emergencies, skills base of the people is very high, all utility services are adjacent to the plot, etc.
    She says, "it has all the top class services you need here".
    He says, "ideal, wonderful, who do I make the $5,000 out to?".
    She says, "it is $1,005,000, as it has all the top class services".
    He said, "It is the same size as the first plot. But mmm, well OK, I'll pay that, as it is ideal, who are the people, and their addresses, I send the cheques to who provide these wonderful top-class service?".
    She says, "no you have to pay the $1,005,000 to a man who lives near the beach in the Florida and lays on it most of the day".
    He says, "well its the same size as the out of town $5,000 plot, so I will send him $5,000 and cheques to those who provide the top-class services".
    She says, "no all has to go to the landowner laying on the beach in Florida".
    He says, "how do these people pay to provide all these services then?"
    She says, "well you pay Property Tax, Income Tax, Sales Tax on the goods you sell, tax to the council and government and all sorts of other fees and taxes, and they provide the services".
    He replies, "well I pay for these services twice then, that doesn't sound fair at all".
    She says, "well yes, you pay once to the landowning man laying on the beach in Florida and again to the authorities. He does not pay taxes on this plot as it is not used".

    Land Valuation Tax (LVT) on the urban plot would pay for the services. The value is higher on the urban plot than the out of town plot which will pay less LVT as its value is less because of the lack of demand because of no services.

    The winner is the free-loading landowner who got rich in his sleep and laying on the beach, who paid sweet nothing for the services that made his land valuable. The man of enterprise and production is paying twice.

    Next time you buy land or a house, think of that.
    I think you have the wrong forum. Socialism is not what we are looking to accomplish on this forum. This is a liberty forum where property ownership is respected, including land, natural rights are inherent, and competition is encouraged.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I think you have the wrong forum. Socialism is not what we are looking to accomplish on this forum. This is a liberty forum where property ownership is respected, including land, natural rights are inherent, and competition is encouraged.
    Firstly understand the point of the short story. It is not an American thing to pay twice for anything. I am preaching the free-market, I have not once mentioned socialism. Understand the points being put across. Does Republicanism mean unfairness in your eyes?

    Understand what is:
    1. Common to all - Commonwealth
    2. What is private - Private wealth.


    When the two are mixed unfairness results. Catastrophic financial crashes also occur - one is still here.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 07:36 AM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    He says: "how do these people pay to provide all these services then?"
    She says:"well you pay Property Tax, Income Tax, Sales Tax on the goods you sell, tax to the council and government and all sorts of other fees and taxes, and they provide the services".
    These are not proper functions of government in a free society. They are socialist constructs.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    These are not proper functions of government in a free society. They are socialist constructs.
    All city services in the USA are socialist constructs? That is new to me. Then all US cities and towns must be bastions of Socialism. Understand what is being put across, and get this cold war red-under-the-bed stuff bouncing around your head sifted out.

  24. #21
    Socialism and Capitalism in their purest forms simply do not work. Note the 2008 crash and its hasn't gone away.

    Geonomics is the perfect system that appeals to elements of the far right and far left and all in between. It is not a political ism. Geoism is an economic movement, able to fit into any political ism.


    "George's blend of radicalism and conservatism can puzzle one,
    until it is seen as a reconciliation of the two. The system is internally
    consistent, but defies conventional stereotypes."

    - Professor Mason Gaffney (US economist)

    “Land should be taxed as much as possible, and improvements
    as little as possible.”

    - Milton Friedman (economist)

    "In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the
    unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of
    many, many years ago."

    - Milton Friedman (economist)

    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject of
    land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill

    "The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was against
    the British landlords."

    - Fred Harrison (economist)

    "Solving the land question means the solving of all social
    questions… Possession of land by people who do not use
    it is immoral - just like the possession of slaves."
    - Leo Tolstoy

    "Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land
    got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards
    hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds. In the case
    of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on
    from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even
    have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were
    quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen,
    upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power
    to do so."

    – George Orwell.

    "Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads,
    the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks,
    and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch
    of England is `owned' by a few thousand families. These
    people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms.
    It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling houses,
    and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much
    land as he can actually farm."

    – George Orwell.


    Geonomics:
    • Spreads the proceeds of a society’s productivity more evenly
    • Prevents financial crashes
    • Prevents land housing booms and busts
    • Keeps land and housing highly affordable
    • Rewards personal effort
    • Allocates the fruits of a society more JUSTLY.
    • Reduces the scourge of the speculator on society (speculation in vital land and its resources). They were responsible for the 1929 & 2008 crashes.
    • Creates a level, stable free-market playing field promoting free enterprise creating wealth overall for all.
    • Reduces land prices overall creating highly affordable homes.
    • Pulls back dependency on the welfare state.
    • Creates higher wages.
    • Encourages full productive use of land.
    • Collects full tax as land cannot be taken off-shore.


    For the politically focused - Geonomics:
    • Promotes an unrigged free-market as its core - appeals to the right
    • Keeps private income in private hands - appeals to the right
    • Keeps commonly created wealth in common hands - appeals to the left
    • Commonly created wealth is used to pay for public services - appeals to the left & right
    • Promotes a fairer society - appeals to the left and I hope most of the right


    But Geoists do not care about right and left.

    The board game Monopoly was originally designed to teach people LVT. The game was highjacked:
    http://en.wikipedi.../wiki/The_Landlord's_Game

  25. #22

    It is the force of land monopoly; it is a screw and lever all in one;
    it will screw the last penny out of a man's pocket, and bend everything
    on earth to its own despotic will. Give me the private ownership of all
    the land, and will I move the earth? No; but I will do more. I will
    undertake to make slaves of all the human beings on the face of it.

    Not chattel slaves exactly, but slaves nevertheless. What an idiot
    I would be to make chattel slaves of them. I would have to find
    them salts and senna when they were sick, and whip them to work
    when they were lazy.

    - Mark Twain


    LVT will stop that slavery.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post

    LVT will stop that slavery.
    LVT just like every other tax is slavery to the state.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    LVT just like every other tax is slavery to the state.
    LVT is NOT a tax. It reclaims community created wealth. This you have to accept as you have difficulty getting to grips with it.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-12-2012 at 09:27 AM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    LVT is NOT a tax. It reclaims community created wealth. This you have to accept as you have difficulty getting to grips with it.
    How does it "reclaim"? Through intimidation, coercion and force of the state? Is it voluntary? If I don't pay are there consequences, including asset foreiture or jail time?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    LVT is NOT a tax. It reclaims community created wealth. This you have to accept as you have difficulty getting to grips with it.
    It has "tax" in the name.

    Sorry, I'm trying to not feed you (the troll), but can you answer 3 questions for me:

    (1) Why should someone be compelled to share the products he devises from his land?

    (2) Who should be in charge of redistributing the wealth confiscated?

    and

    (3) What will the confiscated funds be spent on, and why wouldn't this happen without this tax?
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post

    Give me the private ownership of all
    the land, and will I move the earth? No; but I will do more. I will
    undertake to make slaves of all the human beings on the face of it.

    LVT will stop that slavery.
    Oh yeah, if diffused private ownership can make slaves of all human beings, just imagine what concentrated public ownership could do?

  32. #28
    I think the geoists really think they're so onto something that it's bound to appeal to libertarians. Just convince them that the LVT is nothing more than a "measure of advantage" (but not an actual cost, perish the thought), and entice them with a promise of being able to keep all their labor, and PRESTO!! The perfect tax.

    Why, think of it - a single tax!

    Yippee. As if we believed it, even if we thought it was a fair tax. LVT and property taxes have the dubious distinction of being ones that are imposed without regard to your circumstances or ability to pay. No income, no income tax. No purchases, no sales tax. But with a property tax or LVT it's "Oh, problems with orders this month? $#@! you, pay me. Business not so good this month? $#@! you, pay me, or out you go."

    No wonder the LVT gives the illusion of prosperity - it naturally and automatically flushes and sweeps all the human debris (read=anybody facing hardships) to the outskirts. Out of sight, out of mind, no brain, no headache.

    It doesn't cost, it actual creates wealth by returning community created wealth back to the community!

    Ah, the promise of a political mechanism for wealth creation. Now if that doesn't resonate with libertarians, nothing will.

    I agree with Travlyr and eduardo.

    /thread

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    I think the geoists really think they're so onto something that it's bound to appeal to libertarians.
    There are Geolibertarians.

    Why, think of it - a single tax!

    Yippee. As if we believed it, even if we thought it was a fair tax. LVT and property taxes have the dubious distinction of being ones that are imposed without regard to your circumstances or ability to pay. No income, no income tax. No purchases, no sales tax. But with a property tax or LVT it's "Oh, problems with orders this month? $#@! you, pay me. Business not so good this month? $#@! you, pay me, or out you go."
    Current property taxes do not take into account your ability to pay. With LVT, if you can't pay then you move, like what happens now. But with LVT you can move to an internal tax haven by relocating to a lower LVT rated district or town/area. With Income tax it stays the same level of extraction wherever you move. LVT can be deferred until sale of land or death. There are exemptions as well. Winston Churchill described your points as the Old Widow Bogey.

    The fact is LVT is proven to work in the real world while the current economic system does not.

    Martin Wolf Chief economist of the Financial Times...


    The essential point is quite simple: the value of resources is created by the economic activity of other factors of production. The owners of these resources can become hugely wealthy and are often untaxed on that increase in wealth: the Duke of Westminster is the richest Englishman simply because he owns a large amount of land in a valuable part of London. So why should he have command over the labour of so many other people?

    That wealth is, in the strictest sense, unearned. If that rise in wealth were taxed away, other taxes - those on labour, capital and entrepreneurship - could fall. This would be both efficient (because taxes on rent do not create distortions, as Ricardo showed) and also just, because the wealth was unearned. Now, surprisingly, the UK allows foreign landowners to enjoy the increase in value created by the British economy, entirely tax-free. This is utterly crazy.

    Let me add four other points.

    1. First, throughout history, the main source of wealth was land-ownership. The parasitic landowner became wealthy on the efforts of others - peasants, tenants and even developers. Sometimes the parasite was also a farmer or developer, but that does not change the fact that these are two distinct economic roles. The parasite built fine castles and palaces and often sponsored music and culture. But he was still a parasite. The beauty of capitalism is that many of the wealthiest are no longer parasites. This is good. But many of the wealthy still are parasites. Moreover, now everybody wants to get rich by being a mini-landowner. That is a huge diversion of effort.

    2. Second, the financial system's ills are the result of unchecked credit-creation. Yes. But unchecked credit-creation would be impossible without collateral. Land is always the principal form of collateral (buildings are a depreciating asset). That is why financial bubbles that do not create credit booms (like the dotcom bubble) are economically benign, while property bubbles are potentially catastrophic. When the value of collateral collapses, the financial system implodes.

    3. Third, there is really nothing new about this understanding of the role of resource rents. They were central to the classical system, from which modern economics, in its various forms, derives. Ricardo's analysis of rent remains intellectually impeccable.

    4. Finally, as Herman Daly has noted, today economically valuable resources are much more than just land (and what lies below it). They include all the services of the biosphere - those that are appropriated, those that are appropriable and those that are non-appropriable. If we do not think seriously and intelligently about how to price resources, we are likely to go seriously adrift, perhaps even into disaster. Here land is the least of our problems - it is appropriable and, by and large, appropriated. So, at least, the price mechanism works, even though the distribution of the gain is grossly unjust. But, in other cases, no appropriation is possible, or at least it is not easy. Nobody can appropriate the atmosphere. It is nigh on impossible to appropriate the oceans. How do you own species diversity? These are serious challenges.


    So, I conclude where I started: resources matter. It was a great mistake to exclude them from the canonical neo-classical model. It is also a great mistake not to tax their owners to the hilt.


    Martin Wolf gave his conclusions on a very long LVT Internet debate:


    This ended up as a heated debate. Nobody will be surprised if I conclude that the result of the debate (often surprisingly ill-tempered) was pro-LVT 10, anti-LVT zero. I am surprised by some of what the anti-LVT proponents have said. I would have thought they would wish to open their minds a bit. I did and was persuaded of the case, as a result. Is not the purpose of such exchanges to learn from one another?


    Take heed of the last sentence by Martin.

    http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exch...mics/#comments
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-10-2012 at 10:41 AM.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    Current property taxes do not take into account your ability to pay. With LVT, if you can't pay then you move, like what happens now.
    Thank you, that's all I needed to hear. I don't need to hear the virtues and upsides of forced eviction from land you can never own under LVT. And the fact that nature provides land, and that we didn't make land, is NOT an argument for someone else's entitlement to it.

    Abolish property taxes and keep the LVT camel's nose out of the tent at all costs. Individuals should act as a matter of recognized and protected rights - and all others, including the corporations, unions, collectives, foreigners, the state, and even that nebulous ridiculous zombie called "community" that some try to anthropomorphize, give life to, and become spokespeople for, can all tread softly around the only the beings that actually have rights, not privileges, and the only beings that truly matter.

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:54 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders- This Land is Your Land
    By Origanalist in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 09:16 PM
  3. BLM Anthem? "This Land Is Their Land"
    By Occam's Banana in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
  4. Land yacht? Try Land Ocean Liner!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 05:32 PM
  5. Single Tax?
    By yongrel in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 02:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •