Correct. Currently the landowner is charging as much as he can right now. If LVT is introduced he can't charge any more than what the market dictates, as he is doing right now. He cannot pass LVT onto the tenant.Originally Posted by Roy L
Correct. Currently the landowner is charging as much as he can right now. If LVT is introduced he can't charge any more than what the market dictates, as he is doing right now. He cannot pass LVT onto the tenant.
You really don't get it do you? Rothbard and the barking mad Austrians have influenced economics for sure. Since then we have had boom & busts and world-wide crashes. It doesn't work and proven not to work with glaring evidence. While Geoism has an impressive track record with proven examples all over the world over the past 100 years or so.
Take you pick. Either proven failed system introduced by yodeling Tyrolleans or one that works. I prefer systems that work.
Several fallacies engaged by this idiot.
His first premise is that while everyone is paying taxes, and he admits freely that the wealthy pay progressively more, the landowners, he says, are more than getting this all "back" from increased land values. -- then comes nothing but false gibberish on how infrastructure was responsible for this "value increase".
Land values appreciate in the midst of any growing population with a growing economy, but that is not primarily due to "infrastructure". Land itself is similar to hard specie. It is naturally rare, and therefore inflation-proof. A HEDGE against a debased currency, one that is deliberately diluted, and which depreciates in value, which hits the lowest income earners, who have no hedges, the hardest.
He focuses on the fact that the lowest income earners tend not to be landowners (tend not have access to the same "hedging" security of landowners). One response to this could be the obvious: Homestead. Turn renters into owners. Remove all artificial barriers to individual land ownership. AKA - FREE EVERYONE FROM EVIL FUCKING RENT.
But no, that would defeat his underlying aim and central purpose, because he also (and rightly) hates income taxes. Does he hate income taxes more than he hates rent? NO. He starts off by decrying rent, but that's really the last we hear of it. He's off in Georgist La-La land after that, because really - the one thing that he said hurts the poor is the very thing he wants to keep in place, and call for as the Grand Solution.
See, the poor are hit by low taxes and high rents. If they were not renters, they would just be hit by low taxes. His aim is not to allow the poor to make themselves inflation-proof, and RENT FREE (free of the ONLY thing he said hits them hardest), by making them landowners, freeing them from rents, and limiting (OR EVEN ABOLISHING) income taxes. Not on your life. His solution is, instead, just to make everyone renters! Rich and poor alike. Make the rich pay "their fair share" of RENT. Then all is well, and all the other taxes (magically, we promise and guaran-damn-tee it), go away.
Land, like any scarce and valuable commodity, really does appreciate in value in a growing economy. The most important reason for appreciation, which can be seen as you move away from insane metropolitan centers, which should not be held up as examples or used as models, is that land simply does not DEPRECIATE in value relative to a thoroughly and incessantly debauched currency. That's not "publicly created" value for the land, but rather "publicly AND privately DESTROYED" value for the currency itself.
The solution is not LVT OR income tax. That's a FALSE CHOICE, as both should be abolished wherever they exist, and forbidden where they do not. Infrastructure does not require EITHER of these mechanisms as revenue streams to exist.
The second solution (which is really the first in terms of importance): STOP DEBAUCHING THE CURRENCY.
The third solution: STOP WITHHOLDING PUBLIC LANDS FROM LANDLESS INDIVIDUALS. MAKE HOMESTEADING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT LAND A RIGHT.
If you inherited land, or already have land, you're out of luck. Declare your homestead, and it's INVIOLABLE.
The fourth solution: ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX AND THE INCOME TAX. Neither are necessary.
But this nonsense of making everyone renters, paying perpetual rents on land they can NEVER own -- that notion can kiss my ass forever, along with all the collectivist, socialist fantasy-land rationale invented to support it. The solution is NOT to make everyone renters. It's the opposite - make it so that everyone can be landowners. That is the ONLY solution that is sustainable, and that I would support.
Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-11-2012 at 05:00 AM.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
You do not understand basic economics for sure. A loose transcript below. The highlighted and underlined pieces below - you need to get to grips with these and understand them, instead of dreaming things up.
THE PROBLEM
Three million children today are living in poverty. Successions of governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax system. Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social mobility.
Are politicians to blame?
The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago by the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land. Governments used the tax system to milk the poor.
Why did they do it?
To enrich the people who own land. It is operated by all democratic governments around the world. The biggest winners are those who own land or homes in the best locations.
People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government. People who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police, rail, roads, army, etc. That sounds fair. They pay for what they receive.
Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes. The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.
That sounds fair. Doesn't it?
Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive taxes. Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect.
Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government. But, the government pays it all back to them.
How do they do this?
Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads This infrastructure raises the productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the property market.
Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us, taxpayers who rent their homes for example, are excluded.
The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land. The rises in property values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse. Then who pays for the services the rich people use? The families on the lowest incomes.
Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they contribute. During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes in just three years. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent, pay more overall.
Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.
Is that fair?
There is only one way to make the tax system fair. Parliament has to tell the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.
We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George nearly introduced in Parliament 100 years ago. But, the landlords blocked them.
The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British landlords. If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public services? By levying a charge on the value of land. People who live in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to fund the service we all share in common.
THE SOLUTION
There is a simple solution to this injustice.
We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services they receive and we are all treated as equals
The above clearly puts it across that the poor are subsidizing the rich - this applies equally to all western countries. The rich are not paying their way. Hence why in the USA 1% of the pop'n own more wealth than the bottom 90%. The land market is giant sluice to extract community created wealth into private rich pockets.
This is completely naive. Most people live in urban areas, and apartments, where owning your own homestead is just not possible.He focuses on the fact that the lowest income earners tend not to be landowners (tend not have access to the same "hedging" security of landowners). One response to this could be the obvious: Homestead. Turn renters into owners. Remove all artificial barriers to individual land ownership. AKA - FREE EVERYONE FROM EVIL FUCKING RENT.
You just never got it! What hurts the poor was wealth being extracted by the very rich. LVT will stop that,which he puts across not mentioning LVT.But no, that would defeat his underlying aim and central purpose, because he also (and rightly) hates income taxes. Does he hate income taxes more than he hates rent? NO. He starts off by decrying rent, but that's really the last we hear of it. He's off in Georgist La-La land after that, because really - the one thing that he said hurts the poor is the very thing he wants to keep in place, and call for as the Grand Solution.
Fred Harrison never suggested that all be renters. You must concentrate and get points. Homesteads? Should these city apartment dwellers move west in covered wagons; complete with long flock, bonnet wearing women?But this nonsense of making everyone renters, paying perpetual rents on land they can NEVER own -- that notion can kiss my ass forever, along with all the collectivist, socialist fantasy-land rationale invented to support it.
Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads This infrastructure raises the productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the property market.
Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us,
Understand the above - immediately above. That is a start for you. Get the basics. Then talk about covered wagons.
Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-11-2012 at 05:34 AM.
Take you pick. Either:
- A proven failed system introduced by yodeling Tyrolleans.
- One that works. I prefer systems that work - Geoism.
Thank for all the propaganda, with all its faulty cause and effect attributions, and the unwitting defense of the necessity for Human Concentrate - with stacked housing and increased urban concentration.
As for covered wagons - not needed. The poor spend more on housing than any other expense. Give them a way to avoid rent altogether (and not through Roy L.'s "exemption" dangled plum, but actual abolishment of public rent payments altogether, which would be about as useless as Section 8 "assistance" with all the insanity we still accept), and watch what happens to those precious apartments in the inner cities, all chock full of labor. You've heard of capital flight? Watch for "Labor Flight", as labor flees to capital, one homesteader at a time. And watch the other capital come sniffing right after them, looking to entice their share of the bounty.
No, they don't have to "head out west" in a covered wagon. If they can Homestead anywhere near a city center - (and not the completely insane megatropolis exceptions to the humanity rule), the amount they save in property taxes alone will more than pay for the occasional necessary commute - but more importantly, it will DIFFUSE the community, DECONCENTRATING the insanity of an inner city where rent is the ONLY OPTION -- FOREVER -- for lower income people. And that diffusion will result in smaller, less insane communities than the ones we have - the monster concentration models that you are actually attempting to encourage and FEED -- as somehow being a good thing.
Oh, and "capital gains" is quite often a "currency value loss" in disguise.
Don't ask me to accept your faulty dogma as passing off as "basics". It's complete and utter rubbish, disconnected from reality, with leaps upon leaps of logic and faulty conclusions about what is responsible for the plight of the poor in the world. Don't believe me? Get a lecture from Roy L. on Somalia and a few other choice spots on the planet.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
And the final piece of the puzzle falls right into place.
Geoists are cannibals! A "geolibertarian" is someone who wants to liberate..."the earth".
Holy Moly, it all makes sense now.
"To Serve Man"
Marinated in LVT sauce, no doubt.
If you ever read the "Mars" trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson about the exploration/colonization of Mars, there is a character, Ann I believe, who is essentially a Geoist of Mars since her entire agenda is to keep Mars as human-free and pristine as possible. Her followers, obviously, are called the Reds, as opposed to the Greens who want to terraform Mars and make it as liveable as possible for humans.
What makes this interesting is that there is not even any pretense of Ann or the Reds being motivated by any sort of respect or understanding of the importance of a biosphere, as on Earth where there is a very good argument to be made for essentially leaving Nature alone so that the Earth, in some sort of Gaia fashion, can maintain and replenish the biosphere which makes human life possible.
On Mars they just felt that somehow the lifeless dirt and rock had some sort of right to exist and that humans were interfering with this 'right to rocks' by trying to live there.
Interesting parallels to some of the Earth-firsters and those who actually think humans are a plague on the planet.
Well, in a way we are but I'm just hopeful the cure is a long-term sustainable symbiosis instead of extinction.
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