What is a sock puppet? I have read that few times.Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
How could you not, being Roy's sock puppet and all?
But they do not permanently live there. No buildings are erected and if they threaten criminal violence then the police come in. Central Park is Commonwealth owned by all. That is obvious.
The streets are commonwealth.
In NYC, Taxi medallions now run up to a million each. These mobile licenses to Land give the owner an exclusive and monopolistic right to carry passengers expensively across NYC. These medallions should be subject to a Land Value Tax. Is there a bubble in this trans-locational form of Land ownership? See more here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-11102011.html
NYC streets are the biggest piece of NYC real estate there is, so says NYC Transportation Commissioner. "Street land" as represented by Taxi Medallion monopoly; the rules and results are the same as for any other kind of Land monopoly.
Do you have few. So many people can't all have the same simple views as you...but there again....
Just get to grips with Geoism. It is for you.
Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-12-2012 at 02:27 PM.
LOL!! My views aren't simple-they're correct. Your views are not "complex"-they are an elaborate exercise in bullshitting. Come to grips with the facts that Geoism is nonsense. It's for the birds.
Why did you make your sock puppet so much dumber than you, Roy? I am disappoint. At least Fire11 was consistent with his sock puppet accounts.
LOL!! John Stossel did a report on those NYC cab medallions. In practice, they crowd out small businesses in favor of corporations who can afford to pay off the government. You still don't know WTF you're talking about!
You are on about criminality and corruption. That is different top the points I am making.
They are confused. You need some clarity of thought. Structure your thoughts.
No, I refuted your BS about the cab medallions. GTFO until you can come up with something logical. As your alter-ego Roy L would say, "I have destroyed you!".
LMAO! Anything you don't like is unstructured and confused. (eta: remember, we are discussing YOUR views, which is why they are simple and unstructured) I think you're just a few grade levels behind and you just need to catch up before you can participate in this discussion.
Let me see if I can try to summarize where we are on this thing. We want to try this program called LVT or Land Value Tax. Now despite the word tax in it and that the government is adding a price onto something so they can take the money, it is not really a tax. Mmm. Ok.
How does it work? I buy some property to live on (or have a business on) at a certain price. Over time, my neighbors (the "'community") does things which cause the value of my land to get inflated. I am somehow receiving economic benefit from this inflated value of my land (even though I don't get a penny of that value as long as I own the property). Then this community will kindly take some of that increased land value back ("reclaiming it") which means I have to give them money.
Now since it was claimed that the money I need to pay for this tax on the inflated value of my land won't come from my income, then I must not have to pay for it since that is where I am getting my money. I further don't have to pay it since it is instead supposed to come from the financial benefits I received by my neighbors driving up property values yet I received no money for that either. I have not been given anything for the increased value of my property (at least until I actually sell it and then I am no longer a land owner) there is nothing for this "community" to "reclaim" from me.
I think I am starting to like this idea! A "tax" which is not a tax and which I don't have to pay.
And on top of that, housing prices will become stable so we don't have to worry about any more housing bubbles. Double benefits! Cool!
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-12-2012 at 02:49 PM.
I doubt you have the intelligence and knowledge to destroy me. One is clear you can't get a point and mix economics up with criminality. Try to separate these thing in your mind.
I notice Roy did destroy the detractors - to my amusement.
LOL!!!! You aren't reading (or you're feigning illiteracy). Come on, now! You can't be this dumb already, Roy! Get rid of this John sock puppet so you at least don't get so convoluted and confused.
Except I didn't "mix economics up with criminality". I addressed your points as YOU raised them. Neither you nor Roy are capable of destroying anyone-except perhaps noobs who haven't read anything on the subjects at hand. But you do make me laugh.
Correct. Tax is misnomer. It reclaims.
So you pay $10,000 for land, Community activity increases that value to say Ł500,000. You can sell or get a loan on that collateral. You can tap into then wealth at any time. Many do. If you sell you make $400,000 for doing NOTHING.How does it work? I buy some property to live on (or have a business on) at a certain price. Over time, my neighbors (the "'community") does things which cause the value of my land to get inflated. I am somehow receiving economic benefit from this inflated value of my land (even though I don't get a penny of that value as long as I own the property).
Yes. Based on rental value, as Hong Kong, Singapore Harrisburg, Taiwan, etc , do.Then this community will kindly take some of that increased land value back ("reclaiming it") which means I have to give them money.
You pay no income tax, property tax, sales tax etc. Your income is now substantial, more than enough to pay for the LVT levied.Now since it was claimed that the money I need to pay for this tax on the inflated value of my land won't come from my income, then I must not have to pay for it since that is where I am getting my money.
If you can't pay, then you are in serious business problems - similar problem to the current system. You can always move to a lower LVT district or town - one you can pay.
You are getting there.And on top of that, housing prices will become stable so we don't have to worry about any more housing bubbles. Double benefits! Cool!
Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-12-2012 at 03:03 PM.
You did.
Tapping into that "wealth" means borrowing- going into debt which must be repaid from my income. It isn't free money.
If I buy property and do nothing yet others around me cause the value of properties to go up, I have done nothing, my income does not change and yet my taxes will rise based on what OTHERS did. This is equitable? If taxes then rise so much I can no longer afford to live on property I paid for then "tough luck"? I paid what I could afford. I did not buy a $500,000 property, I bought a $100,000 property. I didn't get that $400,000 so why should I pay taxes on that $400k or be forced to sell what I purchased fair and square?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-12-2012 at 03:09 PM.
Many will lend without payment, or repaid way into the future - the land is security. In a house the loan can be no payments and payable on death or sale of house/land. Many retired people do this, to tap into that wealth under the house, to enjoy themselves into their retirement without monthly repayments. Easy.
The same will apply to the Single Tax (LVT). The state will reclaim on death or sale of land.
Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-12-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Except Zippy's point still stands. You can't "tap into the wealth" without paying for it. A lot of people did this in Phoenix in the 2000's, and lost their homes because of the debt they incurred and couldn't pay back (they believed land prices would go up forever and the other lies propagated by the bankers and the financial racket). Again, you're trying to talk about things you don't understand.
You can. Read my post again.
You really must understand what happens now, then try and project that to a far superior economic system.
No, you did not.
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.
The issue of land value tax is naturally a state and local issue. The way we issue money is the most fundamental federal issue. Ron Paul's focus has been on the federal government, which should stay out of the land question. The federal government should own no land other than what is needed for Constitutionally authorized federal purposes. To reduce the abuse of federal landholding, the federal government should pay the same taxes on the land it holds as anyone else pays.
Local governments compete, and, without state and federal interference, can discover for themselves which revenue approaches and which expenditures are most attractive. State governments complete less, and national governments use tariffs and immigration limits to severely curtail competition. The shift to sales and income taxes (which Ron Paul has always opposed) accompanied the shift from local government to centralized government. This is not coincidence, I think.
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.
Now this actually starts to make more sense.
I'm not for any taxes, but if they are a necessary evil then the more local the better, and a local property tax or land tax to me is vastly different than some Federal or Global land tax which is what I inevitably see Georgists argue for.
Push power down to State and County governments and let them be the primary taxing authority, not the Federal Government. While not a perfect solution by any means it's a step in the right direction.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us