The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Martin Wolf - Chief economist of the Financial Times.....
...
Socialising the full rental value of land would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. That is obviously impossible.

Not so, as the alternative -- leaving landowner privilege in place -- will also destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. It will also, unlike justice, ultimately destroy society.

The current financial system is built on debt, especially mortgage debt. We can destroy that system (which it very much needs) without imposing any significant hardship on anyone (rich, greedy, privileged parasites will of course lose most of their assets, but then, they deserve to). Just recover publicly created land value by taxation, eliminate the debt money system, and replace it with an independent Mint whose sole mandate is to print just enough money to keep commodity prices stable, and deliver it to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

But socialising any gain from here on would be far less so.

It would be fairer and much more effective to recover the land value gains obtained since the land was last traded. Just exempt the rental value of each land parcel at the time of last purchase from taxation, and then phase out the exemption over a decade or two as the rising land rents resulting from explosive economic growth make it irrelevant. This would prevent anyone from losing any significant value or wealth that they actually earned and deserved.

This would eliminate the fever of land speculation. It would also allow a shift in the burden of taxation. Perhaps as important, with the prospects of effortless increases in wealth removed, the UK might re-examine its planning laws. There is panic about the dire consequences of such a liberalisation of restrictions for the countryside. It is worth noting, however, how little is needed: an increase of just three miles in the radius of London would raise the capital’s surface area by 50 per cent. Would this really be the end of England’s green and pleasant land?

More to the point, requiring landowners to repay what they are being given would stimulate them to use existing vacant and under-utilized urban sites more intensively, REDUCING the pressure to expand into greenfield areas.

I do not expect any government to dare to wean the English from their ruinous trust in land speculation as the route to wealth. But I can hope. It is bad enough that the result has been expensive houses and inefficient taxes. But it is surely far worse that such insane speculative fevers have ended up destabilising the entire global economy. Even if few know it, it is time for a change.

Well, everyone who has read this thread or the LVT thread knows it -- even if most of them refuse to know it.

[Steven Douglas]

...an independent Mint whose sole mandate is to print just enough money to keep commodity prices stable, and deliver it to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

"Yeah, what Roy said. I want to
print and spend just enough to
keep commodity prices stable,
no more, no less. Honest Injun!"

And when that happy little nightmare happens, I hope they pick me as one of the lucky first recipients of that juicy new money that gets spent into circulation. Location, location, location!

Now, if I can just figure out a way to convince the Treasury that my hotdogs are tastier than my competitors'.

[Roy L]

"Yeah, what Roy said. I want to print and spend just enough to keep commodity prices stable, no more, no less. Honest Injun!"

Better than private banksters fabricating enough debt to force everyone but the banksters deeper and deeper into debt. You seem permanently unable to know the fact that independent agencies are just that: independent.

And when that happy little nightmare happens, I hope they pick me as one of the lucky first recipients of that juicy new money that gets spent into circulation. Location, location, location!

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant? There would be no difference between the spending of the new money and spending of tax revenue. Only the source of the money would be different.

Now, if I can just figure out a way to convince the Treasury that my hotdogs are tastier than my competitors'.

Yes, well, good luck with that. Given the level of economic understanding you have displayed to date, you won't be persuading government to spend money on anything you produce any time soon.

[Roy L]

I'm not evil.

You want to profit by the uncompensated violation of others' rights. That is evil.

I simply reject the premises behind the claim that I owe "the community" anything as irrational (they are).

There is nothing irrational about being required to pay the community for what you take from the community. As a landowner, you just want to take from the community but not pay. Simple.

btw, I mean no disrespect because you are exactly correct about "intellectual property".

I am also exactly correct about land. And you know it.

[Steven Douglas]

Better than private banksters...

I'll leave it to you to rationalize what you think is the lesser of two evils, while I pass entirely on your false choice. I agree with our original Congress, which imposed a death penalty on anyone artificially fucking with the value of the money supply. Off with their worthless heads.

There would be no difference between the spending of the new money and spending of tax revenue. Only the source of the money would be different.

Bullshit. Even with the disingenuous attempt to narrow the argument to the differences in "spending", as if that actually said something.

The spending of taxed revenue is not the difficult part. The difficult part is that it requires actual taxation - an up front acknowledgement that real productivity is being siphoned for public interests. That provokes actual and specific reactions on the parts of those being directly taxed, and at the very least implies accountability on the parts of representatives who could be answerable to those taxed. With taxed revenues, the actual source of the money and the channels by which it makes its way into the economy, are not qualified. If it's hard specie, tied to one or more actual commodities, then the source can be both stable and non-distorting.

Revenues that are merely printed into existence out of thin air and spent into the economy is far easier - for government at least - as this invisible and indirect tax provides them a haven -- insulation from accountability (something that naturally has strong appeal to cowardly parasites and other counter/unproductive nasties of the world). In that case the source of the money is qualified (i.e., out of a vacuum), as is the source of its invisibly siphoned value (existing and future currency holders, the value of whose holdings are perpetually diluted). It is also 100% inflationary by design...even if we were actually actually poop-stupid enough to buy into the stable commodity prices "mandate".

[Roy L]

I'll leave it to you to rationalize what you think is the lesser of two evils, while I pass entirely on your false choice.

It's not the lesser of two evils, it's good rather than evil.

I agree with our original Congress, which imposed a death penalty on anyone artificially fucking with the value of the money supply. Off with their worthless heads.

<yawn> As you know, but must refuse to know because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil, the original Congress also purposed to finance the federal government entirely by a tax on the value of landed property.

Bullshit

Fact.

Even with the disingenuous attempt to narrow the argument to the differences in "spending", as if that actually said something.

Talk about disingenuous! I said the difference is NOT in spending, but in the source of the money.

The spending of taxed revenue is not the difficult part.

Depends what you mean by "difficult."

The difficult part is that it requires actual taxation - an up front acknowledgement that real productivity is being siphoned for public interests.

As you know, that's just another flat-out lie from you. LVT does NOT siphon productivity, AT ALL. It simply recovers the publicly created value that landowners are ALREADY siphoning from real productivity for their PRIVATE interests.

That provokes actual and specific reactions on the parts of those being directly taxed,

And in the case of LVT, they are beneficial actions that promote liberty, justice and prosperity. You just hate liberty and justice, and prefer to sacrifice your country's prosperity so that you can profit unjustly from the forcible removal of others' liberty without just compensation.

I.e., you prefer evil over good, and intend to serve evil by opposing good.

and at the very least implies accountability on the parts of representatives who could be answerable to those taxed.

That would only apply to those who are being taxed out of their rightful property, not to thieves who are being required to repay what they have been stealing.

With taxed revenues, the actual source of the money and the channels by which it makes its way into the economy, are not qualified. If it's hard specie, tied to one or more actual commodities, then the source can be both stable and non-distorting.

No, it can't.

Revenues that are merely printed into existence out of thin air and spent into the economy is far easier - for government at least - as this invisible and indirect tax

Stop lying. It's not a tax if it just maintains money's purchasing power, because no one loses anything they would rightfully have. Stop lying. Government EARNS the seigniorage of such revenues BY maintaining the value of money and fostering the economic growth that would otherwise make that money more valuable without the holders of that money having done anything to earn the increase in purchasing power.

provides them a haven -- insulation from accountability

Another lie. They are accountable to the people, and the people will notice if their money is not of stable value.

(something that naturally has strong appeal to cowardly parasites and other counter/unproductive nasties of the world).

The landowner is the most counterproductive, unproductive, vicious, greedy, evil, and cowardly of all nasty parasites.

In that case the source of the money is qualified (i.e., out of a vacuum), as is the source of its invisibly siphoned value (existing and future currency holders, the value of whose holdings are perpetually diluted).

No, it isn't. You are lying, Steven, LYING. You just want the holders of money (and especially debt instruments) to have the value of their holdings perpetually concentrated so that they can live as parasites permanently, taking from production while contributing nothing whatever to production.

Just like the landowner-parasites you also crawl on your belly to fawn over and serve.

It is also 100% inflationary by design...

<yawn> Lie. Blatantly and self-evidently.

even if we were actually actually poop-stupid enough to buy into the stable commodity prices "mandate".

There is exactly one person here who is actually poop-stupid, Stupin.

[Steven Douglas]

It's not the lesser of two evils, it's good rather than evil.

Yeah, if by good you mean flat-out demonic.

...the original Congress also purposed to finance the federal government entirely by a tax on the value of landed property.

Non-sequitur, as you shifted awkwardly from the subject of taxation via fiat money creation (deliberate currency debasement as a means of taxation) to tax on the value of land, which has ZERO to do with the death penalty imposed by Congress for specie debasement.

Talk about disingenuous! I said the difference is NOT in spending, but in the source of the money.

Read what I wrote again (this time really read it). I said that your point that there would be no difference in spending was irrelevant - that's what made it disingenuous, as it was nothing more than a deflection statement on your part. But there you go trying to make it relevant again by restating it. It's still just as irrelevant. Not to mention inaccurate. The easier it is to lay your hands on funding at will, the easier it is to spend it.

Greenbacks made all the difference in the world as augmented funding for war -- an ENORMOUS difference between taxation revenue spending and printing revenue spending, for reasons that should be obvious to even the most casually observing idiot. Really, a complete idiot could see that plainly, without any deep thoughts required. Come on, Roy, you're not that daft, are you?

LVT does NOT siphon productivity, AT ALL. It simply recovers the publicly created value that landowners are ALREADY siphoning from real productivity for their PRIVATE interests.

Who said ANYTHING at all about LVT? Earth to Roy...

Blah blah LVT beneficial...liberty, justice and prosperity, blah blah propaganda blah blah...you prefer evil over good, and intend to serve evil by opposing good.

Shhhhh....Shh..shush-shush-shut your mouth.

It's not a tax if it just maintains money's purchasing power, because no one loses anything they would rightfully have. Stop lying. Government EARNS the seigniorage of such revenues BY maintaining the value of money and fostering the economic growth that would otherwise make that money more valuable without the holders of that money having done anything to earn the increase in purchasing power.

What goofy, logically disjointed and completely inaccurate statements. IT DELIBERATELY ERODES its value, and screw the rationale of "purchasing power" used by all the dishonest ilk who see market manipulations and price or value targeting/fixing in any of its forms as a rationale for currency debauchery. Government "fostering economic growth"..."EARNS" seigniorage...worse than pathetic.

They are accountable to the people, and the people will notice if their money is not of stable value.

You really are all but completely disconnected from reality, aren't you? Even in the face of a currency that is not stable in value today, with all the finger pointing that happens when people do indeed notice that their money is "not of stable value", most of whom have no idea what money even is, let alone who is to blame for that loss of stability. But somehow noticing that money is not "of stable value" makes those who debauch the currency accountable. Not to mention it is a disgustingly presumptuous assumption that ANYTHING should be artificially "of stable value".

You just want the holders of money (and especially debt instruments) to have the value of their holdings perpetually concentrated so that they can live as parasites permanently, taking from production while contributing nothing whatever to production.

Debt instruments? I loathe the fact that debt instruments are even considered money, but most of all the fact that debt instruments do not compete fairly with privately accumulated capital. Where did you get the ridiculous notion that I cared a whit about debt instruments? I loathe the fact that savings are invisibly taxed through inflation that is based on artificial currency value manipulations of any kind. You're the one who wants the currency deliberately debauched/debased - just through a different, more direct, mechanism - the fact that there are no debt instruments involved in your little currency debauching fantasy scenario does not detract from that simple fact.

[EcoWarrier]

They don't find it difficult to understand. They understand very well that it proves their beliefs are false and evil, so they have to find a way not to understand it. This whole thread (not to mention the previous LVT thread) proves that conclusively.

I have read most of this thread, not all as some posts are just irrelevant snipes with some anti-LVT posts just plain rude and ignorant responding with silly cartoons displaying gross misunderstanding or conditioning. When beaten they go close to insults and refer to LVT posters as trolls as they have no argument.

What stands out is that the case put forward for LVT as the Single Tax is overwhelming with backup from leading economists and the rest. Some of those against have some strange views. Some are grossly self-centered, not wanting to pay their way in their communities and wanting to live off what others provide, which makes them parasites. They disguise this parasitical view in some sort of personal freedom notion. Some have been conditioned over time, and have told themselves lies and believe them, that their view is the right view despite all logic demolishing their view. They say black is white and white is black.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times as clear as day states where the root cause of the Credit Crunch was, which is speculation in land and points out the devastating effects of speculation in land and its resources. Wolf also highlights those who have made money in land by doing sweet nothing. In his article in the FT, Wolf refers to Fred Harrison and Harrison's view, in video, ironically is on post No. 1 of this thread. Sir Sam Britten also of the FT has also expressed the same views as Marin Wolf and the same solution. All state that the cure for this financial evil for ever is LVT.

[EcoWarrier]

Martin Wolf - Chief economist of the Financial Times.....
...
Socialising the full rental value of land would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. That is obviously impossible.

Not so, as the alternative -- leaving landowner privilege in place -- will also destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. It will also, unlike justice, ultimately destroy society.

But socialising any gain from here on would be far less so.

It would be fairer and much more effective to recover the land value gains obtained since the land was last traded. Just exempt the rental value of each land parcel at the time of last purchase from taxation, and then phase out the exemption over a decade or two as the rising land rents resulting from explosive economic growth make it irrelevant. This would prevent anyone from losing any significant value or wealth that they actually earned and deserved.

Wolf is wrong. Socializing the full rental value of land would not would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. How could it?

I think what Martin Wolf is saying is start an LVT system from the point of implementation. Trying anything else will be politically difficult to drive through. Wolf has to get his ideas through and something perceived as radical may not be viewed too well. Say starting from 1st Jan 2013, you pay LVT on the land values. What is in the past is in the past.

Much land in the UK, US and Canada, etc, has not been traded for hundreds of years. About half of the land in the UK is not even on the land register, which is a fiddle to keep parasitic aristocratic land from prying eyes. Of course all land in a country must be on its land register.

[Roy L]

Wolf is wrong. Socializing the full rental value of land would not would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. How could it?

Very simply: privatized rent is currently capitalized into land value. Remove the private appropriation of rent, and land value disappears. Real estate will lose about 2/3 of its value. Many mortgages will be underwater, and banks' loan portfolios will consequently all be trashed.

I think what Martin Wolf is saying is start an LVT system from the point of implementation. Trying anything else will be politically difficult to drive through.

Not sure what you mean by "anything else."

Wolf has to get his ideas through and something perceived as radical may not be viewed too well. Say starting from 1st Jan 2013, you pay LVT on the land values. What is in the past is in the past.

I don't see how that avoids the transition issues.

Much land in the UK, US and Canada, etc, has not been traded for hundreds of years.

Then it wouldn't get much of a purchase cost exemption.

About half of the land in the UK is not even on the land register, which is a fiddle to keep parasitic aristocratic land from prying eyes. Of course all land in a country must be on its land register.

Yes, that can be remedied easily now using computer and satellite mapping technologies.