Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 454

Thread: We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    That's precisely how the income tax got it's nasty foot in the door.
    Income Tax was a temporary tax introduced by the British Tory government to fund the Napoleonic wars. Prior, taxes came from land. In 1692 Parliament introduced a national land tax. This tax was levied on rental values and applied both to rural and to urban land. No provision was made for re-assessing the 1692 valuations and consequently they remained in force well into the 18th century.

    The Tory Party were the party of landowners. The saw the opportunity to push taxation from their lucrative acres to to working, productive people via income tax. They had the thin edge of the wedge in and and rammed it in gently over 100 years to the point little taxation was coming from land. As a result the richest people in the UK are landowners living on unearned income. Clear theft.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    You make no sense. Markets under control of the State is not a free-market.
    You are confused. A free-market is not under the control of the state.

    < snip wayward imagineering >
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  4. #303
    Originally Posted by Travlyr
    You make no sense. Markets under control of the State is not a free-market.

    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    You are confused. A free-market is not under the control of the state.
    I surely hope you have a severe substance abuse problem because it would sadden me to no end to think you were this cognitively handicapped. Go back and read the part I made bold, italicized, and underlined. Then read what you wrote.

    HELLO.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  5. #304
    Ah yes, the LVT civilization construction set.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #305
    The only way to build a truely Utopian Society.

  8. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by Len Larson View Post
    Ah yes, the LVT civilization construction set.
    It has been used successfully many times.

  9. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    What you really need to answer, which has been asked many, many times, is what is so special about land value tax, rather than air value tax, and water value tax?
    What you have been told many, many times, but always baldly refuse to know, is that the owner of land, but not of air or water, is empowered to charge others full market value for the services and infrastructure government spends its tax revenue to provide. This is because ownership of land -- i.e., locations on the earth's solid surface -- confers the advantage of proximity to those services and infrastructure. Therefore, to the extent that they buy things people are willing to pay for, all taxes that are spent on services and infrastructure are being given to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway. It is the landowner and the landowner alone who benefits from and GETS TO POCKET taxes. There is no way to run public spending that does not subsidize the landowner. That is a law of economics.

    You just permanently refuse to know that fact.
    When does the taxation end?
    When all the public services and infrastructure have been paid for.
    And who benefits from the "tax"?
    The landholder, of course. He always gets all the benefit of government spending that isn't wasteful or corrupt. That is why he should rightly pay for it.

    However, you have decided to devote your life to serving greed, parasitism and evil; so you will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER to prevent that fact from entering your brain. There is no amount of fact or logic or evidence or proof that can ever force it into your skull. It is permanently impossible.

  10. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    And you trust your government leaders to be honest & fair with their redistribution to all members of the community? Why? Have they ever?
    Of course we don't "trust" them. We hold them accountable for performance of their jobs, like any other employee. Duh.

    Do you actually know how to do anything but shriek, "meeza hatesa gubmint"?

  11. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Ron Paul was a staunch supporter of N.D.'s Measure 2, which would have eliminated all property taxes, including the land value tax component thereof. There is no way in hell that Ron Paul would EVER support a Land Value Tax.
    As he is quite intelligent, he might well support LVT if he is more willing to know facts than you are.
    Section 4 of Ron Paul's Liberty Amendment reads: SOURCE
    And you can rest assured that by "estates", he meant that to include all privately owned wealth, including privately owned land.
    No, you are just lying again, as usual. By "estates" he indisputably meant the property of deceased persons under legal administration by executors or other trustees, and you know that fact very well.
    Ron Paul believes that both land and money are different forms of capital, and would NEVER support any form of Land Socialism or "reclaiming socially created wealth for the collectivist land rental commune".
    Whom are you dishonestly pretending to be quoting when you put a stupid lie like, "collectivist land rental commune" in quotes?

  12. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    What you have been told many, many times, but always baldly refuse to know, is that the owner of land, but not of air or water, is empowered to charge others full market value for the services and infrastructure government spends its tax revenue to provide. This is because ownership of land -- i.e., locations on the earth's solid surface -- confers the advantage of proximity to those services and infrastructure. Therefore, to the extent that they buy things people are willing to pay for, all taxes that are spent on services and infrastructure are being given to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway. It is the landowner and the landowner alone who benefits from and GETS TO POCKET taxes. There is no way to run public spending that does not subsidize the landowner. That is a law of economics.
    Here you're very much mistaken-especially in regards to desert areas. Parts of major rivers (i.e. the Salt River) are privately owned for the use of power companies. There is a quite elaborate system for ownership of rights to certain parts of major rivers. Owners of rights to these rivers in turn charge customers for power produced by the companies' use of the river. (IOW, this is a sort of "rent seeking" system) I encourage you to move beyond what you think you know and examine the real world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  13. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations. This irrefutable fact escapes nearly every human being walking the earth this day. There is NO SUCH THING as "government" as the belief, concept, and notion most commonly held in the minds of people. It has no substance whatsoever. Zero. Yet, people speak of it and regard it in their minds as if it had an existence independent of humanity. Remove people and where shall one find government? Nowhere, because it exists ONLY within the confines of our skulls and NOWHERE else at any time, under any circumstance, for any reason, by any cause whatsoever. It is fiction. It is bull$#@!. It is an outright lie.
    More of the absurdities intended to enable atrocities.
    A landlord is not government.
    True: landlords don't have to maintain legitimacy or be responsible to the people they take money from.
    What you write tacitly presupposes several things. Firstly, it implies that private contracts are invalid.
    Stupid lie. Duress invalidates the contracts made under duress, not all contracts.
    Secondly, it implies that private property is invalid.
    Stupid lie. Pointing out the fact that private property in land is invalid does not imply that private property is invalid, any more than pointing out that private property in slaves is invalid implies that private property is invalid.
    Thirdly, it implies that any person ostensibly in ownership of real property is evil.
    Stupid lie. Slavery is evil, but that does not mean every slave owner is evil.
    Fourthly, it implies that any such a person promotes himself to a status of even greater evil for having not only the temerity to charge rent to another for making some use of that property, but that he dares to place conditions upon the renter such that his property is not brought to destruction or other harm.
    Strawman fallacy.
    Fifthly: it implies that there are people "out there" somewhere holding the authority to determine HOW MUCH property any given person may hold and that they hold it at the pleasure of others, further assassinating the notion of private property.
    Stupid lie. The question at issue is not "how much" property a person can own, but "what kinds" of things can rightly be property.
    Those are the very direct implications of what you have written, above.
    Stupid lie.
    You are no friend of liberty.
    You are an enemy not only of liberty but of justice and truth, as proved above.
    Quite the opposite, judging by this embarrassingly flawed diatribe of yours.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    http://libertythinkers.com/education...r-land-rights/
    EDIT cont.: This page chokes to death on its own fail in the very first paragraph. The author was perhaps an idiot? At best, he had less than zero understanding of that which constitutes proper liberty. The article is poorly reasoned and builds upon rotten assumptions.
    Anti-truth fail.
    Landlords are already limited.
    Everything is limited -- except, of course, the stupidity, dishonesty and iniquity of evil, lying, anti-LVT filth.
    It is called "criminal law" as well as the laws of contracts. If you do not like the conditions a landlord places upon your living in his house, then go elsewhere. You are not entitled to reside there.
    You know that trying to change the subject from land to houses is dishonest, but you did it anyway.
    And all the nonsense about "per capita value" and the three conditions... Jesus, what stupidity. His conflation of of Spooner's valid and correct observations about government with that of the landlord is precious in its cute idiocy. If this is the sort of bull$#@! to which you subscribe, knock yourself out, but you would be far happier at http://revleft.com I recommend you go find yourself a comfy home there.
    Content = 0.
    Good intentions count for nothing whatsoever when the results imposed upon others against their wills are rotten.
    Landowning is precisely such a result imposed upon others against their wills.
    The moment you elevate a subset of a population above the rest, absolutely anything may result.
    As landowning has done throughout history.
    The act itself - nay the mere ascent to it opens the door wide in principle for tyranny of any form and degree you may care to name.
    The act of landowning does. And has. Right.
    Landowning is theft; purely; simply, absolutely.
    There. Fixed it for you.
    You are arguing for your flavor of pretty slavery.
    No, you are, as already proved multiple times.
    Fail.

    Epically.

    Catastrophically.

    Terminally.
    Mirror time.

  14. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations.
    So all that administraion all over the world is an illusion. Boy......

    < snip tht rest as it is pure childish drivel >
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    What you have been told many, many times, but always baldly refuse to know, is that the owner of land, but not of air or water, is empowered to charge others full market value for the services and infrastructure government spends its tax revenue to provide. This is because ownership of land -- i.e., locations on the earth's solid surface -- confers the advantage of proximity to those services and infrastructure. Therefore, to the extent that they buy things people are willing to pay for, all taxes that are spent on services and infrastructure are being given to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway. It is the landowner and the landowner alone who benefits from and GETS TO POCKET taxes. There is no way to run public spending that does not subsidize the landowner. That is a law of economics.

    You just permanently refuse to know that fact.

    When all the public services and infrastructure have been paid for.

    The landholder, of course. He always gets all the benefit of government spending that isn't wasteful or corrupt. That is why he should rightly pay for it.
    Nicely put.

    However, you have decided to devote your life to serving greed, parasitism and evil; so you will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER to prevent that fact from entering your brain. There is no amount of fact or logic or evidence or proof that can ever force it into your skull. It is permanently impossible.
    Roy has highlighted the conditioning of greed in our societies. It runs so deep many tell themselves lies and believe them thinking they may at one point get a parasitical major financial gain somewhere and not work hard, or at all.

    They should be more concerned with something productive and having a system in place they encourages productiveness and eliminates parasitical activities.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  17. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Here you're very much mistaken-especially in regards to desert areas. Parts of major rivers (i.e. the Salt River) are privately owned for the use of power companies. There is a quite elaborate system for ownership of rights to certain parts of major rivers. Owners of rights to these rivers in turn charge customers for power produced by the companies' use of the river. (IOW, this is a sort of "rent seeking" system) I encourage you to move beyond what you think you know and examine the real world.
    You are in La-La world then. If power companies get the rights to certain parts of rivers (we own the rivers which is common wealth) then they pay a fee for using that common resouce. Simple. That is the real world.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  18. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, you are just lying again, as usual. By "estates" he indisputably meant the property of deceased persons under legal administration by executors or other trustees, and you know that fact very well.
    Even you can't be that daft, that obtuse, Roy. It's obvious that you saw the word "estate" and immediately thought "estate tax", the commonly used term that deals specifically with taxes on the property of deceased persons. An estate however, is nothing more or less than the net worth of a person (dead or alive) at any point in time; the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests, obligations and entitlements to property of any kind (including land).

    Living people have estates, and while the "Estate Tax" was definitely included in Ron Paul's amendment proposal, it was not limited thereto. You should know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Whom are you dishonestly pretending to be quoting when you put a stupid lie like, "collectivist land rental commune" in quotes?
    Just paraphrasing for clarity, since it is the very essence of what you're seeking. All land is subject to rent, by, for and in the name the just compensation to collectivized individuals, making any LVT regime, in essence, a collectivist land rental commune.

    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations.
    So all that administraion all over the world is an illusion. Boy......
    Hey, pay attention at the front! You missed the brightly colored block he put in front of you labeled GOVERNANCE (as distinguished from "government"), which he explained clearly enough for any child, but not anyone childishly snipping and full of information drivel, to understand.

    (Told you all if it anything didn't resemble one of his familiar Fisher Price toys he'd go all "Uh-oh! V.E.R.N. Vern!" on us.)

  19. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Here you're very much mistaken-especially in regards to desert areas.
    No, I am of course objectively correct, as usual.
    Parts of major rivers (i.e. the Salt River) are privately owned for the use of power companies. There is a quite elaborate system for ownership of rights to certain parts of major rivers. Owners of rights to these rivers in turn charge customers for power produced by the companies' use of the river. (IOW, this is a sort of "rent seeking" system) I encourage you to move beyond what you think you know and examine the real world.
    Please explain how you erroneously imagine that contradicts what I wrote.

  20. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Even you can't be that daft, that obtuse, Roy.
    You lied, Steven. I knew you would -- you have to -- and you did.

    And now you are trying to divert attention from that fact with a spew of stupid, dishonest filth.
    It's obvious that you saw the word "estate" and immediately thought "estate tax", the commonly used term that deals specifically with taxes on the property of deceased persons.
    And I was correct, because the amendment you quoted was ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAXES.
    An estate however, is nothing more or less than the net worth of a person (dead or alive) at any point in time; the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests, obligations and entitlements to property of any kind (including land).
    Blatant -- and grotesquely, sickeningly dishonest -- equivocation fallacy. YOU KNOW that in the context of the quote, "estate" meant the property interests of deceased persons as have been subject to taxation.
    Living people have estates, and while the "Estate Tax" was definitely included in Ron Paul's amendment proposal, it was not limited thereto.
    Yes, of course it was, stop lying. The amendment was specifically to remove the specified taxes.
    You should know that.
    I know that you are lying. Stop lying.
    Just paraphrasing for clarity,
    No, you were deliberately lying, as usual.
    since it is the very essence of what you're seeking.
    No, that is just another stupid lie from you about what I have plainly written.

    All you do is think up the stupidest and most dishonest lie you can imagine, and then post it. And then to rescue your lies, you think up even stupider and more dishonest lies.
    All land is subject to rent,
    No, only land that more than one person is willing to pay to use.

    You really can't write even a single honest, factual sentence on this topic, can you?
    by, for and in the name the just compensation to collectivized individuals,
    Blatant oxymoron.
    making any LVT regime, in essence, a collectivist land rental commune.
    No, that is just you telling another stupid, evil lie. LVT is no more "collectivist" than any tax a society might use to fund its government, and a society that does so is no more a "commune" than any society whose members are aware of the responsibilities associated with living in society.

    Some evil, lying sacks of $#!+ are so despicably, sickeningly dishonest that they pretend not to be aware of the responsibilities associated with living in society. But LVT advocates, being honest, are not among them.

  21. #318
    OK, so all land, including privately owned land, is considered "commonwealth", which belongs to everyone (but only collectively). Other scarce resources, like ore, fossil fuels, water, and even bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum, would also be considered common wealth, and part of the definition of "land" subject to a Land Value Tax.

    Under LVT, the state, or taxing jurisdiction, behaves as a for-profit, profit-maximizing land-owning corporation, which is in the business of renting out titles to parcels of land within its jurisdiction. Every individual citizen is considered an equal shareholder (of a single share which may not be bought or sold) of this incorporated entity. LVT rental fees (LVT levied) which are paid to the state are said to recapture "community created value", or economic land rents, which are collected by the state on behalf of the everyone -- collectively only -- in the community.

    The Universal Individual Exemption (if actually provided for), would be considered a Community Shareholder Privilege - a mechanism for providing "just compensation" that is owed to each individual who has been deprived of their natural liberty rights to use land which they are excluded from using in common. The Universal Individual Exemption acts as an LVT Credit, which each individual can apply toward any land, but which is sufficient in itself for "enough good land to live on". Also, like any corporation, dividends might also be paid out directly to community shareholders from the land rent profits.

    Sounds like a Collectivist Land Rental Commune to me. A socialistic monopolistic racket.

  22. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    OK, so all land, including privately owned land, is considered "commonwealth", which belongs to everyone (but only collectively). Other scarce resources, like ore, fossil fuels, water, and even bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum, would also be considered common wealth, and part of the definition of "land" subject to a Land Value Tax.
    You are sort of there. The collectivist bit is off mark though.

    Under LVT, the state, or taxing jurisdiction, behaves as a mechanism to reclaim commonly created wealth to fund common services.

    LVT rental fees (LVT levied) which are paid to the state are said to recapture "community created value", or economic land rents, which are collected by the state on behalf of the everyone -- collectively only -- in the community.
    You are sort of there. The collectivist bit is off mark though.

    Sounds like a Collectivist Land Rental Commune to me. A socialistic monopolistic racket.
    Steven after I thought you were doing so well, you write such drivel. What a disappointment.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  23. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Sounds like a Collectivist Land Rental Commune to me. A socialistic monopolistic racket.
    The rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind.

    Collecting tax a socialistic racket? Wow. We must have a very Marxist government in power right now then. Wow. I never knew that.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    Collecting tax a socialistic racket? Wow. We must have a very Marxist government in power right now then. Wow. I never knew that.
    Which kind of government is in power is irrelevant.

    rack·et
    noun
    1. […]
    2. A dishonest business or practice, especially one that obtains money through fraud or extortion.

    Since taxation is extortion, collecting tax is a racket. Regardless of the brand of statism.
    Freedom Project Europe. It's the FSP gone Euro. Show your fellow European liberty-lovers support: give us a "Like"

  26. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by yoshimaroka View Post
    Since taxation is extortion, collecting tax is a racket. Regardless of the brand of statism.
    Do not be silly. Taxation is NOT extortion or theft. The taxation has to be right and tax extracted from the right point. That is from community created wealth to pay for community services. Taxing the individual, or production, is not the right place to collect tax.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  27. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    Do not be silly. Taxation is NOT extortion or theft. The taxation has to be right and tax extracted from the right point. That is from community created wealth to pay for community services. Taxing the individual, or production, is not the right place to collect tax.
    What wealth does the community create besides infrastructure that can easily be done by individuals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  28. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Hungarians are not noted for their political savvy. Their history says it all. Most embarrassingly.
    Wow, anti-individualism on a Ron Paul forum?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  29. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    tax extracted from the right point. Taxing the individual, or production, is not the right place to collect tax.
    Taxation is the levying of tax.

    I've highlighted the actions in the quote above: "extracted", "collect".

    By whom and how does the process of extracting or collecting happen?
    Freedom Project Europe. It's the FSP gone Euro. Show your fellow European liberty-lovers support: give us a "Like"

  30. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    Do not be silly. Taxation is NOT extortion or theft. The taxation has to be right and tax extracted from the right point. That is from community created wealth to pay for community services. Taxing the individual, or production, is not the right place to collect tax.
    lol! Of course it's extortion and theft. Who would pay if it weren't for the threat of force? Speaking of being silly!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  31. #327
    Do readers realize the original post is arguing for the total socialization under govt. rule over every real assets on the planet? Plus this article is written as a classic "either - or argument." There is only two choices so you must chose one. IMO - This piece stinks of one world view propaganda. Pheww!
    Life is not a movie & liberty will not be delivered on a bed of feathers.

  32. #328
    I'm referring to the collectivist dogma of "natural liberty rights" to ALL land, all of which is collectivized and considered to be "common wealth". That has nothing to do with LVT, and everything to do with the rationale used here for it, which I reject outright.
    You confuse common rights and collective rights. Classical liberals embraced common rights.
    http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

    "Socialist Confusions
    The classical liberal distinctions between land, labor and capital were greatly confused by socialists, and particularly Marxists, who substituted the fuzzy abstract term, "means of production," for all three factors. They also blurred the distinction between common property and state property, for socialists believed, as royalty also believed, that they were the people.

    Today, the confusions between land and capital and between state property and common property are shared by socialists and royal libertarians, and only classical liberals keep these distinctions clearly defined. Yet royal libertarians frequently duck the land issue by charging that it is the classical liberals, not the royal libertarians, who have embraced socialist ideas."

    http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Sullivan_RL.html

    You said it backwards. We're talking about whether geoism is a violation of the free market, not the other way around. The part I put in bold is the violation, all of which gets obfuscated and rationalized away with tortured logic by geoists (e.g., "land is a natural monopoly", "It doesn't matter whether it's a thousand owners or a single owner", "the supply of land is fixed" -- referring to the total geographical area in existence, not the economic definition of supply -- "LVT doesn't involve regulation", etc.,).
    Having a government enforce restitution for theft is not a violation of free market principles. I'm sure you would not consider it a violation of the free market when a court demands a citizen pay stealing his neighbor's car or setting fire to his house.

    Classical liberals did not simply prefer LVT to other forms of taxation, they believed it was perfectly compatible or even a requirement for a free market.

    Albert Jay Nock:
    "He [Henry George] was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Nock.html



    I don't care about Fred Foldvary,
    Too bad. He is one of the smartest and most consistent libertarian economists alive today.

    but if you're for the abolishment of zoning law, great. But that brings me to another point. People raise objections about LVT, and most of the geolibs I encounter pull an Obamacare-like attitude in response. "Establish it first, then we'll work to perfect it." To me that's worthy of a smack-down all by itself. If a Geoist wants to impress me, pave the path to LVT by calling for things that eliminate the objections FIRST.
    Universal Individual Exemption? WHY is that not being called for NOW? Where are the LVT advocates when it comes to tax exemption amounts for "good enough land to live on" AS A STARTING POINT. An LVT regime is not required for that.
    Abolish zoning laws? Any reason why that can't be eliminated NOW? The ECO's in favor of LVT would $#@! themselves in vehement opposition, because for many of them that's the biggest advantage to LVT. Preserve the Earth, and force humanity into an artificially smaller "eco-footprint". Meanwhile, artificial scarcity drives up land values.
    What about enterprise zones, abatements, special exemptions, grants and crony favoritism? Where are all the geoist voices on this when it comes to property taxes - as a matter of principle? Silence. Crickets. Which is not surprising given that some LVT sites actually TOUT enterprise zones, abatements, grants, etc., as USEFUL TOOLS under a geoist regime.
    How are those issues going for you right now? Obviously you aren't going to end zoning laws, income taxes, and cronyism with the State as it is right now. You need a path towards deconstructing the State. I have stated several times that I believe the LVT can play a major role in putting us on the road towards freedom.
    More from your pal Foldvary:

    "Land value taxation would also result in a substantial reduction in the cost of government. The administrative cost of land value taxes would be less than that of existing property taxes (which require a greater inspection of buildings and improvements), and the cost of enforcing income and sales taxes would be eliminated. By improving economic growth and allowing workers to keep all the money they earn, land value taxation would result in higher incomes, reducing the demand for government welfare programs. Decentralization, privatization, and the elimination of wasteful government programs would further reduce the amount needed to fund government. ..."

    Henry George on the direct effect of the LVT:

    "1. It [LVT] would dispense with a whole army of tax gatherers and other officials which present taxes require, and place in the treasury a much larger portion of what is taken from people, while by making government simpler and cheaper, it would tend to make it purer." - Henry George

    "(d) The unjust distribution which is giving us the hundred-fold millionaire on the one side and the tramp and pauper on the other, generates thieves, gamblers, and social parasites of all kinds, and requires large expenditure of money and energy in watchmen, policemen, courts, prisons, and other means of defense and repression. It kindles a greed of gain and a worship of wealth, and produces a bitter struggle for existence which fosters drunkenness, increases insanity, and causes men whose energies ought to be devoted to honest production to spend their time and strength in cheating and grabbing from each other. Besides the moral loss, all this involves an enormous economic loss which the Single Tax would save.
    " - Henry George


    And while we advocate the LVT we, at the same time, advocate the elimination of taxes on rightfully earned wealth, the end of imperialism, and protection of free speech. Just because I oppose the Drug War does that mean I support it until the LVT is in place? Of course not. But having the LVT would make ending the Drug War much easier.



    That's precisely how the income tax got it's nasty foot in the door. And like I said, it doesn't really matter if the land value appraisal is nuts on, because the government decides the MULTIPLIER. I don't care about anyone's best intentions, because I live in the real world. I know that with most property taxes, the taxing jurisdictions set their budgets FIRST - tax later accordingly (by adjusting valuations and mill rate multipliers) to meet that budget. The actual "valuation" is just to determine each taxpayers proportion. The amount actually levied (usually by the multiplier, not the valuation) is subject to annual revision.
    In other words, lets forget about ANY attempts at tax reform for the government will always find a way to abuse it. Sure.


    Which it usually is. States and local governments are usually under no obligation to publish exemptions and favoritism, and most of the public doesn't think it doesn't affect them, or else isn't any of their business either way. Measure 2 proponents played hell trying to get information on exempted property under FOIA, and most taxing jurisdictions dicked them around, and were not forthcoming. The LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP OF LAND is practically impossible to avoid. That's not the same thing as the tax, as property taxes (which include LVT) are already avoided to the tune of billions.
    There are several ways to ensure the LVT system is not taken advantage of. For example, there are software-assisted crosschecks. On top of that, Geoists want all assessments open to scrutiny. So if you question how much Wal-Mart next door is paying in the tax you can go to the local office and see how it was calculated.


    It was a perfect, because while governments do not generate physical land, they can effectively "hand it out" by simply declaring an area an "Enterprise Zone". That's just one way it can "generate land".
    And no geoist advocates "handing it out".
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    Income Tax was a temporary tax introduced by the British Tory government to fund the Napoleonic wars. Prior, taxes came from land. In 1692 Parliament introduced a national land tax. This tax was levied on rental values and applied both to rural and to urban land. No provision was made for re-assessing the 1692 valuations and consequently they remained in force well into the 18th century.

    The Tory Party were the party of landowners. The saw the opportunity to push taxation from their lucrative acres to to working, productive people via income tax. They had the thin edge of the wedge in and and rammed it in gently over 100 years to the point little taxation was coming from land. As a result the richest people in the UK are landowners living on unearned income. Clear theft.
    ^Truth
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  35. #330
    Common property is an oxymoron.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Urgently need some real help
    By osan in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 12:26 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2015, 02:09 PM
  3. Best books/articles to read to understand Classical Liberalism and Austrian Economics?
    By NOVALibertarian in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 06:49 AM
  4. Ron Paul Roadies urgently need your help.
    By eleganz in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 02:46 AM
  5. Calculus Please Help! Urgently
    By Dripping Rain in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-05-2010, 01:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •