Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[Steven Douglas]

They are willing to pay for the advantage the bandit controls, but he is robbing them because there is no reason they should be paying HIM for it.

Oh I could agree, as long you replace HIM with ANYONE.

Consider the very similar case of a bandit stopping motorists on a public road and extorting $10 from them. They might be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road, but even you are not stupid or dishonest enough to claim they aren't being robbed.

You're referring to a policeman? Well, of course I agree. It is extortion, and they are being robbed. You said they "might" be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road -- but we wouldn't know that unless we asked them, would we. And asking one, or some, or even most, would not be the same as asking all.

Or consider a long-established protection racketeer who charges businesses for access to the local customer base (if he is not paid, he doesn't harm the business's premises, just lets it be known in the neighborhood that no one is to patronize the business)

Ah, yes, licensing requirements for ordinary people to engage in commerce. A total racket.

They are willing to pay for it , but they are definitely being robbed.

No, we have not established in EITHER of the above cases that they are "willing" (voluntarily, of their own free will, in that they would pay even if the option to not pay existed).

The theft is in their being forced to pay someone who is not providing value in return, as you know perfectly well.

No, Roy, that's where you have it all fucked up. The theft, the extortion, is in being forced to pay. Period. Your attitude is like that of a classic racketeer, Roy. You think it's OK to force someone to pay, so long as you (to your satisfaction only) "provide value in return". Do you think a protection racketeer doesn't justify extortion by claiming that he is "providing value in return"?

And what about your loopy-stupid notion that A BANDIT is only going to take what merchants are "WILLING" to pay? What the fuck does that mean, "WILLING"? How do you know that they are willing to pay ANYONE -- let alone HIM? Not only do you have the concept of WILLING completely twisted, you have a fantasy notion of "benevolent bandits" that don't take absolutely everything they can possibly take when the opportunity presents itself.

A husband and wife stop at an average hotel. The advertised price is $100 a night, and they take a room. When they go to check out the next morning, the desk clerk hands them a bill for $350, along with a list of itemized charges. The husband explodes.

HUSBAND: All you can eat all-night buffet? We didn't eat anything here!
CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it.
HUSBAND: Olympic-sized pool, day spa and massage? We didn't use the pool or go anywhere near the spa!
CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it.
HUSBAND: Luxury conference center? We didn't use that either!
CLERK: Well, sir, it was there if you wanted it.

Livid, the man goes quiet, writes out a check and hands it to the manager.

"Sir," the manager says, "this check is only made out for $100."

"That's right," replies the man. "I deducted $200 for you having sex with my wife."

"I didn't have sex with your wife!" exclaims the manager.

"Well," the man replies, "it was there if you wanted it."

You cannot give someone something, assign your own value to it, force someone to pay, and pretend it is not extortion. You cannot assume that since others are willing to pay a given amount for a thing, that everyone else must be "willing" to pay that same amount. That's nasty, Roy. Stinky, icky, nasty.

Yep. Just like the protection racketeer's victims. There is just no reason they should pay HIM.

OR ANYONE ELSE (public or private). Not unless it was truly voluntary. Otherwise, there is no reason they should pay ANYONE, including the state if it behaves in the same way as a racketeer. States get no pass. The state becomes the ultimate protection racket when extortion is implemented -- the idea that ANY ENTITY (public or private, state or mafia-state) provides a service, has a monopoly on that service, assigns its own values to that service, and rationalizes force used to make others to pay for that monopolized service on the basis that "something was given in return".

Now you answer them.

I did. The answer is no to both, but unlike you, my answer is consistent by extension, across the board. It is the same whether it is a private bandit or a state bandit (and no, that is not using your circular reasoning as you apply it to landownership). A bandit is a bandit, and theft is theft in both cases. You are the only one who thinks that the state can license itself to be a bandit, and that somehow the nature of monopolistic theft, extortion and coercion become something else because it's Roy's nasty, despicable version of a state that is doing it. Meeza hatesa your version of gubmint, Roy.

No amount of twisting, squirming, conflating, obfuscating dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government (A SERVANT ONLY) is NOT synonymous with the private individuals that make up a community, which individuals created both the state and all private land's value. It is, therefore, those private individuals who should rightly enjoy the rents thereof, while the state does not, and therefore rightly should not, EVER behave as a bandit, under Color of Collectivist Non-Reasoning.

The fact that others simply "value" (are willing to pay for) ANYTHING, including land, does not an entitlement to others make. Not for ANYONE, public or private, singular or collective. So take your merry band of would-be LVT parasite state bandits elsewhere, Roy.

[Zippyjuan]

Surprise!

You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

You are stopping others from using what government, the community and nature provide.

The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes. That's what land value IS. And that is why land is so expensive.

So if you have a house or apartment or business, you have no problems with me stopping by and going in at any time- otherwise you are depriving me of the right to access your property. Otherwise, I can charge you for not letting me in.

You have removed my liberty to use and benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

There isn't any government infrasturcture on my property to deny anybody access to and I am not stopping any social services by virtue of owning land (can you give examples if I am?) .

and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

Can I avoid the taxes if I leave the land as it is- no buildings, farms, or factories?

The unimproved value of land is identically equal to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and not repay in taxes. That's what land value IS. And that is why land is so expensive.

SO my annual tax should be the full value of my land? A 100% tax? That does not sound like a "simple and painless tax" as it has been described.

Do you tax all lands? Farms and grazing lands as well? Or do you exempt them to protect food production? Forests and deserts, lakes and mountains? What about government controlled lands (if the tax on land is 100% then the government will end up owning most of the land- even more than the do today)?

[Carson]

"Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit"

Yes in a way but not by the populace that most people identify as the Rich that are not paying their taxes.

Besides once that group was stripped of their wealth the counterfeiters would continue on their rampage of looting the planet.

What if the counterfeiters themselves became the group that had to pay their capital gains taxes like the rest of us? I'm not really sure it would pay anything off but it sure would cramp their style.

If we created something that cost a few cents and sold it for a dollar we would need to pay our taxes. Lots of honest businesses have been playing the game that way. Well what about the counterfeiters that print up a fiat note? What about the group that has printed up a bond out of thin air to trade for the notes? Should they be left out of the loop? Both parties could and should be held accountable to pay their taxes. Should they not?


Someday, if I'm ask, I'm going to have to point out taxation without representation for you. It's a real Duesy.

[Roy L]

So if you have a house or apartment or business, you have no problems with me stopping by and going in at any time- otherwise you are depriving me of the right to access your property. Otherwise, I can charge you for not letting me in.

No. We have already been over this a dozen times. You are wrong in two different ways: first, a house, apartment or business is not land, would not be available to you if I hadn't built (or paid someone to build) it, and IS therefore (unlike the land) rightly my property, so you have no right to go in without my permission. Second, if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land, and you have your individual exemption (UIE) that allows you to keep me off some land of your choice, then I've already compensated you for not being allowed to come onto the land I'm using, so you'll be staying out, thank you very much.

There isn't any government infrasturcture on my property to deny anybody access to

Then how do you get to your property? As you know perfectly well, I did not say you were necessarily depriving others of access to government infrastructure ON your property (though many landowners do), but to infrastructure that is accessible FROM your property.

Stop being so dishonest.

and I am not stopping any social services by virtue of owning land (can you give examples if I am?) .

False. You are depriving others of the opportunity to access government services that are available FROM your property, whether it is local schools, Medicare/Medicaid, police and fire protection, or whatever. You know this.

Can I avoid the taxes if I leave the land as it is- no buildings, farms, or factories?

Certainly not, any more than you can avoid paying for a loaf of bread you take home from the bakery if you decide not to eat it. You're depriving others of it even if you don't use it yourself. I'm not sure there is any clearer way to explain that to you.

SO my annual tax should be the full value of my land?

The full rental value. You're getting confused between two different kinds of value. The land's exchange value (what you think of as its "value") is the discounted capitalization of all its future after-tax rental values; so because the tax would leave no rental value in your hands, its exchange value would disappear (i.e., you would effectively pay it all at once when the tax was passed, but without actually paying any money). You'd then just pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure.

A 100% tax? That does not sound like a "simple and painless tax" as it has been described.

I don't think anyone has claimed LVT would be painless for landowners: they would lose their privilege of pocketing other people's taxes, and the capital asset value that goes with it, and that's certainly going to hurt. But the amount of the tax is just the amount you would be paying if you were renting the land from an ordinary private owner.

Do you tax all lands? Farms and grazing lands as well?

All lands, in principle. Lands in use for government purposes would be listed and appraised, so governments could decide if their use was preferable to a private use.

Or do you exempt them to protect food production?

Applying LVT to farm and grazing land will INCREASE food production and REDUCE food prices by reducing speculative landholding and increasing allocative efficiency. You still haven't understood that LVT is TOTALLY UNLIKE OTHER TAXES because it makes the economy fairer and more efficient, not less fair and less efficient.

Forests and deserts, lakes and mountains?

Forests are valuable and would likely be taxed; deserts, lakes and mountains usually have little or no rental value, and would not be taxed unless they did.

What about government controlled lands (if the tax on land is 100% then the government will end up owning most of the land- even more than the do today)?

Nope. Government won't want any more land than it needs for its own purposes, because that would just reduce revenue. You still haven't understood that LVT ALIGNS GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

[Zippyjuan]

Applying LVT to farm and grazing land will INCREASE food production and REDUCE food prices by reducing speculative landholding and increasing allocative efficiency. You still haven't understood that LVT is TOTALLY UNLIKE OTHER TAXES because it makes the economy fairer and more efficient, not less fair and less efficient.

Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Hood-Tax/page3 I assumed that we kept the budget the same size it is today. If we include all farmlands and grazing lands and urban areas in our taxable base, the LVT on an acre of land would be $3,485. Meanwhile, the average value of farmland in the country is $2,140 an acre. Now you are adding a tax which is going to increase his costs by $3,485 a year more than he currently pays for his expenses. 50% more than the land itself is worth in this example.

But we can ignore the projected numbers and simply look at what ANY increase in taxes will have on farming and food production and food prices.

So what effect would this tax have on a farmer? Two things will happen. One- fewer people will be able to afford to farm- the margins are low and some of them will be forced to sell. It will also discourage others from becoming farmers because the costs of becoming one will be higher. Unless they are able to raise the prices of food enough to pay for the taxes. That is not going to happen since there is a lot of competition in producing food- not only from farmers in this country but farmers in other countries as well. The tax will give a massive advantage to foreign growers- a bid subsidy to them since they are not facing this tax. And the selling off of farmland will reduce the food supply and raise the prices of foods. Foreign cheaper food floods the market at prices below what the US can produce them at- more US farms fail.

Can you explain to me just how this is supposed to INCREASE food production when it will actually have the opposite effect? You can't because it does not happen that way. Higher taxes on anything leads to increased production? Only in a fantasy world- not in reality. Otherwise an infinity tax would lead to infinite productivity if raising taxes increases production.

(as a further number I calculated that if you exempt farming and grazing lands the tax jumps to over $60,000 an acre per year which is 50% higher than the before tax median income in the country).

Taxes do not increase efficiency. They discourage activities. If you want to discourage something, put a tax on it- that encourages people to do it less. Want people to smoke less? Raise the taxes on cigarettes. Taxing land for food production (or whatever) discourages producing more food. It increases the cost of that activity and it will also increase the cost of food.

If you want to discourage the average person from buying land, tax it. That will leave it to two entities- those with lots of money and the government- owning most of the land. If you want the average person to own more land and keep it out of "exploiters" hands (those who would use it to their own maximum gain- not "society's benefit"), taxing is the wrong direction to take. Unless you believe those two groups will act in totally altruistic manners. They will persue their own interests.

[Cowlesy]

Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805, and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.

[Steven Douglas]

...if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land...

Such a deprivation is not grounds for an entitlement to anyone, singular or collective.

In the absence of land monopolies, public or private, everyone is justly deprived of their liberty to use other people's land (yes I'm begging that question deliberately), with no rents due or owing.

I did not say you were necessarily depriving others of access to government infrastructure ON your property (though many landowners do), but to infrastructure that is accessible FROM your property.

All infrastructure, including roads and other common lands, is common property, and therefore not for direct profit, public or private. The state is a SERVANT of the infrastructure it creates-at-someone-else's-expense. Thus, the state is not in the "business" of providing infrastructure. Stop referring to the state as if it was a going for-profit concern.

You are depriving others of the opportunity to access government services that are available FROM your property, whether it is local schools, Medicare/Medicaid, police and fire protection, or whatever.

Yes, isn't it sad that nobody can order a pizza for delivery using your home address, and must use their own address instead. And don't conflate police and fire protection with local schools and other state monopolized, highly value distorted monstrosities, as if they were on par with one another. Your leftist statist colors are showing.

HALF-BAKED METAPHOR ALERT:

Certainly not, any more than you can avoid paying for a loaf of bread you take home from the bakery if you decide not to eat it. You're depriving others of it even if you don't use it yourself.

The state is not an LVT Land Rental Bakery Store, much less one that has ALL LAND on its "shelf".

The full rental value.

...as in, everybody is now a renter, and the state is the landlord.

You'd then just pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure.

Under LVT, you'd then just pay the state the market appraised rent for secure conditional exclusive tenure.

There, fixed your bed of roses for you. You left out the reality of the thorns.

I don't think anyone has claimed LVT would be painless for landowners: they would lose their privilege of pocketing other people's taxes...

Flagrant, dishonest question begging. Land rents are not "other people's taxes". We're not reasoning this through with your jilted mindset, Roy.

But the amount of the tax is just the amount you would be paying if you were renting the land from an ordinary private owner.

...and the very thing LVT proponents rail against as so much evil. But it suddenly becomes good when the state is doing it (read=tickles the wealth-redistribution sensibilities of geocommunists). Forget that if everyone was a landowner, the amount of rent they would be paying to an ordinary private owner (namely, themselves) would be ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. How much better is that?

Government won't want any more land than it needs for its own purposes, because that would just reduce revenue.

Yeah, ignore things like zoning laws and land withheld from usage such that artificial scarcity drives up values. Ignore the micro-economics of supply and demand, and how the market really works. LVT is magically immune to all of that, as it even has its own laws of economics (geonomics, doncha know), which operates in a completely different realm.

You still haven't understood that LVT ALIGNS GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

That is like saying that Michael Vick was only aligning his interests with those of the dogs in his fighting pits. After all, the dogs were willing to fight, and those betting on the doges wanted them to fight. And no matter which dogs wins, the state gets its pound of flesh from the victor. And the fact that victors will exists can serve as proof positive of its swimming success.

In Roy's fantasy regime, government's methodologies under LVT will mimic private market methodologies, as the state now gets to play the role of capitalist (albeit a completely monopolistic one). Once the state "corners the market on land rents", and becomes a for-profit landlord with a monopoly on those rents for an entire factor of production, the stage will be set for a nice game of Let's You And Them Fight, which ensures that everything is equitable and fair (to the state and the victors).

[EcoWarrier]

Originally Posted by Roy L
...if I have made just compensation to the community (by paying LVT) for depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land...

Such a deprivation is not grounds for an entitlement to anyone, singular or collective.

What the hell are you babbling about? Did your friend Norman tell you to write that? We all own the land. Look up Sovereignty. That means we can all wander over it. But if someone fences off land for essential private living needs or business, that deprives the rest of us to walk on that land. So title (as set of rights) is issued for land to prevent others walking on that land. Roy clearly and simply states that if you deprive us all of walking on our land you quite rightly must pay the rest of us for that privilege. LVT is the perfect mechanism for that.

Roy's point of paying to occupy land is one one point of the justification of LVT. Another is reclaiming community created wealth that soaked into the land crystallizing as land values.

[EcoWarrier]

Our family's land has been passed down since we settled on it after a long trip from Connecticut in about 1805, and I damn well am not going to give up our little slice of land-pie to "the people" because some marxists think it's a good idea.

And quite right! You a have the right to occupy the land. Not because of your ancestors holding it for that period, which is totally irrelevant to the current occupation and use of the land.

By the way, your ancestors did legally steal the land from its previous occupiers in an invasion by the the United States into the adjacent lands to the west. But that does not mean the land should be taken from you today.

[EcoWarrier]

Let's revisit, if we may, some numbers I ran on what an LVT might cost.

You must stop making things up.