It is regulated by the market, not bureaucrats of the state.Originally Posted by eduardo89
Government revenue is dependent on land sales, right?
Repetitive nonsense is well...nonsense.
And any apparent improvement everyone (community) makes. Stop planting those flowers, and removing your old cars, we'll all pay more LVT!
That is sales tax. Please read the thread from the beginning. It is all there.
The income tax was sold to people using similar lies. I don't see any reason to trust the government with this tax either. Self-regulating. Surrrre.
Except when you're posting, right?
Last edited by eduardo89; 03-10-2012 at 07:32 PM.
That is what I thought. So when land sales become stagnant then the government ceases to be funded. And they will become stagnant.
A recipe for disaster.
But this market rate has to be interpreted by someone. The market doesn't send the government a fax with the correct number. It would be government employees (unelected bureaucrats) who interpret what they believe the market rate is. The same unelected state employees who depends on LVT revenue to pay their salaries, benefits and pensions. No chance of corruption there...
That's quite poetic actually. Does the wealth of all this economic growth first rain down onto the land, followed by the warming, nurturing good-will of the vibrant community spirit, which soaks into the land, resulting in the bountiful harvest of the crystallized land value?
When you can't bully them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$#@! eh?
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
No, what JLVT is saying is it's a property not property tax, in other words, you pay a Land Tax that is based on what your neighbors have done with their property or businesses or common values such as hospitals, roads, etc....
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
So, would the highest priced land be where there is the lowest LVT?
Facinating. Can you perhaps provide link to such studies? Given that nearly half don't pay any income taxes today that would be interesting to see how they came up with that figure. Negative tax rates perhaps? Thank you for looking for the info to share.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_886293.html
The studies I have seen looked at changing from a property tax to LVT- not replacing an income tax with it.Nearly half of American tax filers will pay no federal income taxes this year, according to data released by the Tax Policy Center.
Some 76 million tax filers, or 46.4 percent of the total, will be exempt from federal income tax in 2011.
But with the help of the government, a similar percentage of filers -- many of them among the bottom 40 percent of earners -- have legally avoided paying federal income tax for the past several years.
Here is one for Altoona PA: http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/upl...%20%202011.pdf In that case, the tax burden was switched from residential owners to commercial owners by going to a LVT. Total tax collections from all payers was higher (this would depend on the tax rate implemented of course).
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-10-2012 at 08:07 PM.
That's not really fair to JLVT, since we know that everyone pays the inflation tax, and sales tax.......
JohnLVT, you know, as I provided the appropriate links before, that Murray Rothbard already demolished the idea of the LVT or "Single Tax"? I guess it is probably better to ignore it so you can carry on with your pipedream about an idea that has been thoroughly demolished. I'll repost the information since it is evident you haven't read into it. Hopefully you'll give up the zombie worship and read Rothbard.
Read pp. 934-937, 1196-1211 of Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market to see how Murray Rothbard demonstrates that the "Single Tax" would not only cause economic havoc, but would also generate ZERO revenue.
If that doesn't give you your fill, also read pp. 575-586, 593-597 of Economic Controversies by Murray Rothbard.
Although the tax may have intuitive appeal compared with other forms of taxation, it is simply one of the worst (if not THE worst), from both the viewpoint of the citizen and the tax-collector, as Rothbard demonstrates. The lack of revenue it generates and the level of economic havoc it causes is probably unparalleled.
I have read Rothbard and he is clearly on another planet...along with all the other Austrians. Karl Marx also said he demolished the Single Tax as well. And was as wrong as Rothbard as well.
That clearly would not follow. The reverse would be true.
Oh crap, not another pointless thread on this subject. Sheesh.... if nobody would respond to this crap, the subject would die a well deserved death.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
True. I was just trolling the troll for lolz.Notice I even pointed him to Roy L's (his alter-ego) other silly thread on this topic, yet he insisted on continuing. Unless something major happens, I'm dropping the topic now.
Please reassume your JuicyG alter-ego. You were much less annoying, pretentious, abusrd, and boring back then.
Well, after your substantive critique, I can't help but find you as worthless as the LVT. If we taxed the value of your criticism of Rothbard, it would generate as much revenue as the LVT.
Last edited by zyphex; 03-10-2012 at 10:19 PM.
Now that's preaching to the choir for sure, as I can't think of any better way of persuading sound money, anti-tax libertarians than saying that Rothbard and all Austrians are on another planet, and then linking them to Karl Marx of all people!
Let me guess, you took a Carnegie course, didn't you.
Nope. Never has, never will.
Ask the Somalis how liberated they feel. "Oh, joy, we get to be robbed by pirates!"Sure the State virtually starves and that is liberating.
Come on, keep it all in one thread. Mods?
Thread ended.
Wrong.
Because such improvements MAKE US WILLING TO PAY. The neighborhood is nicer. Why is this so hard to grasp? It's a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay transaction, like paying for the things you take out of the grocery store. You pay because you want the benefits. If you pay more, it is because what you are getting is WORTH more in the market's judgment.
It has to be measured using price data from actual transactions.
Almost certainly, it would be a computer program.The market doesn't send the government a fax with the correct number. It would be government employees (unelected bureaucrats) who interpret what they believe the market rate is.
Pretty much not, as all the data would be public. Corruption requires secrecy. Like current tax systems.The same unelected state employees who depends on LVT revenue to pay their salaries, benefits and pensions. No chance of corruption there...
No, it was not, stop makin' $#!+ up. We are not telling any lies, and the income tax was sold using quite different and entirely bogus arguments.
LVT is self-regulating because it is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay transaction. If government tries to overcharge, people won't use the overpriced land and revenue will drop. LVT is the only possible revenue system that aligns government's financial incentives with the public interest.I don't see any reason to trust the government with this tax either. Self-regulating. Surrrre.
HE JUST TOLD YOU IT WASN'T.
LVT revenue is not dependent on land sales, and the market will be more liquid, not less liquid.So when land sales become stagnant then the government ceases to be funded. And they will become stagnant.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us