First of all, the vast majority of the increase in nominal prices of land are a result of inflation. While it is possible that surrounding government amenities can help increase those prices, the seizure of the property of others to pay for them does not obligate the property owner to pay for that. Again, just like the health care scenario, the solution is that the government stop stealing from others in order to pay for these projects or services rather than use them as an excuse to steal even more and exert even more control over the people.
They are, or at least were before the crash. Right now they are mostly too scared to undertake major debts even at record low interest rates, because they know there is still a lot of deleveraging to go through, and interest rates won't stay this low forever.Property taxes have very little to do with it otherwise they would be buying up the land all over the country where property taxes are the lowest.
There is no valid property right in land to respect, as ownership of land inherently violates others' rights to liberty. Private landowning always has to lead to concentration of landownership, as a matter of immutable economic law.does nothing to prove how land would be distributed in a society where property rights are respected.
You falsely -- and absurdly -- assume everyone is born owning land.If you don't want the fatcats to buy your land, then don't sell it to them.
The fatcats ARE the government. That's how they got to be fatcats.If the government forces you to sell to them, then abolish the government.
No, that's a fabrication on your part. As aggregate land rents (and their capitalization, land value) increase faster than GDP, the majority is real increase. In the first 130 years of US history inflation was negligible, but land value increased by two orders of magnitude.First of all, the vast majority of the increase in nominal prices of land are a result of inflation.
Yes, actually, it does, because he has no right to a welfare subsidy giveaway financed by the theft of other's rightful property. As all government spending on services and infrastructure goes to the landowner, he is obliged to repay what he is taking.While it is possible that surrounding government amenities can help increase those prices, the seizure of the property of others to pay for them does not obligate the property owner to pay for that.
It is the landowner who is stealing and exerting control over the people.Again, just like the health care scenario, the solution is that the government stop stealing from others in order to pay for these projects or services rather than use them as an excuse to steal even more and exert even more control over the people.
This is from the site that Steven links to.
I strongly agree with this statement. If you give governments too much money, they will get addicted to it and and use it for ill purposes. It's very important to systematically underfund government. Since government is the solution that by definition uses violence, it's important to look at it as a last resort and consistently keep it wanting for funds.He also said that money is like herion to an addict and M2 will help break the addiction.
Nope. Objectively wrong. The world's best governments are all well funded, and the worst funded ones are all bad.It's very important to systematically underfund government.
No, such claims are always just stupid. Government that consistently wants for funds is government that is easily corrupted by money, and government that consistently wants for funds looks for other ways to get things done, such as by force. Consider the governments of the early modern era, like France's ancien regime, which lacked money and so used forced labor (corvee), which was far less efficient and far worse for the people.Since government is the solution that by definition uses violence, it's important to look at it as a last resort and consistently keep it wanting for funds.
California has prop 13 which has kept property taxes down but they do go up an allowed amount each year. The anti prop 13 people are so disingenuous when they blame the measure on lower tax collection as many of the properties that originally fell under prop 13 have since been sold and reassessed at their new purchase price.
Property taxes in California are considered "secured" meaning they can take your property, but California now has an "unsecured" property tax. My friend owned a fast food restaurant and his equipment in his store such as his refrigerators and deep friers were considered "unsecured" property and he had to pay the state taxes on that equipment annually. It used to be you got to write this equipment off with depreciation.