Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 1050

Thread: The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #421
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Several fallacies engaged by this idiot.
    No, you are just spewing stupid, anti-economic garbage.
    His first premise is that while everyone is paying taxes, and he admits freely that the wealthy pay progressively more, the landowners, he says, are more than getting this all "back" from increased land values. -- then comes nothing but false gibberish on how infrastructure was responsible for this "value increase".
    He is objectively correct, and he did not say ONLY infrastructure.
    Land values appreciate in the midst of any growing population with a growing economy, but that is not primarily due to "infrastructure".
    Wrong. Infrastructure and services are what make a growing population and economy possible AND ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS.
    Land itself is similar to hard specie.
    Wrong. Specie is a product of labor and not in fixed supply. You are just spewing stupid, anti-economic garbage again, as usual.
    It is naturally rare, and therefore inflation-proof.
    <sigh> Specie is not inflation-proof, as the Spanish specie inflation of the 16th C proved.
    A HEDGE against a debased currency, one that is deliberately diluted, and which depreciates in value, which hits the lowest income earners, who have no hedges, the hardest.
    Garbage. Inflation hits creditors hardest, and tends to benefit the lowest income earners, who are more often debtors.
    He focuses on the fact that the lowest income earners tend not to be landowners (tend not have access to the same "hedging" security of landowners). One response to this could be the obvious: Homestead. Turn renters into owners.
    What, through squatters' rights? ROTFL! You are just talking stupid, anti-economic nonsense again.
    Remove all artificial barriers to individual land ownership.
    Land ownership is itself the biggest artificial barrier to individual liberty, prosperity and home ownership.
    FREE EVERYONE FROM EVIL $#@!ING RENT.
    That is economically impossible. All your "solution" will do is make the productive into the permanent slaves of rich, greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowners. Which is just pure evil.
    But no, that would defeat his underlying aim and central purpose, because he also (and rightly) hates income taxes. Does he hate income taxes more than he hates rent? NO. He starts off by decrying rent, but that's really the last we hear of it.
    You are talking nonsense. Rent is simply a fact of the market. It makes no more sense to hate rent than to hate wages or interest.
    He's off in Georgist La-La land after that, because really - the one thing that he said hurts the poor is the very thing he wants to keep in place, and call for as the Grand Solution.
    We have no more choice about the existence of rent than we do about the existence of wages or interest, and for the same reasons.
    See, the poor are hit by low taxes and high rents.
    No, they are hit by high taxes, high rents (which go together), and being forced to pay the former (often through burden shifting) while forcibly being deprived of the liberty to take advantage of the latter.
    If they were not renters, they would just be hit by low taxes.
    Nope. They need access to opportunity. Not being renters through "homesteading" and owning land off in the wilderness somewhere does them no good at all. Your proposed "solution" is just stupid, anti-economic nonsense.

    The mystery here, Steven, is how you can so obviously understand that people have and need a right to use land, yet still deny it. People can't exist without using land, and you know that. But your brain has been so twisted into irrationality by landowner greed, illogic and absurdities that you think somehow people have more of a right to own land than to use it, despite the indisputable fact that ownership of land is precisely the measure of how much of people's rights to use it have been removed.
    His aim is not to allow the poor to make themselves inflation-proof,
    The poor, not being creditors or having much money, are already inflation-proof anyway.
    and RENT FREE (free of the ONLY thing he said hits them hardest), by making them landowners, freeing them from rents,
    Rent is the price of access to an economic opportunity that would otherwise be available. So “freeing” them from rents just means forcibly depriving them of their liberty to access economic opportunity by violent, aggressive, physical coercion.
    and limiting (OR EVEN ABOLISHING) income taxes. Not on your life. His solution is, instead, just to make everyone renters! Rich and poor alike. Make the rich pay "their fair share" of RENT.
    I.e., the value they are taking. Right. Whereas you want them to keep it, as a welfare subsidy giveaway paid for by robbing the productive.
    Then all is well, and all the other taxes (magically, we promise and guaran-damn-tee it), go away.
    As already proved, LVT is inherently the only possible way to make government self-financing.
    Land, like any scarce and valuable commodity, really does appreciate in value in a growing economy.
    Garbage. Commodities generally decline in real value in a growing economy. It is natural resources that grow in value, as they are in FIXED SUPPLY, and represent economic opportunity.
    The most important reason for appreciation, which can be seen as you move away from insane metropolitan centers, which should not be held up as examples or used as models, is that land simply does not DEPRECIATE in value relative to a thoroughly and incessantly debauched currency. That's not "publicly created" value for the land, but rather "publicly AND privately DESTROYED" value for the currency itself.
    Nope. That's just more false, dishonest and stupid garbage from you.
    The solution is not LVT OR income tax. That's a FALSE CHOICE, as both should be abolished wherever they exist, and forbidden where they do not. Infrastructure does not require EITHER of these mechanisms as revenue streams to exist.
    As private interests cannot provide efficient amounts of investment in infrastructure, it must be paid for publicly. There are only two ways to do that: by recovering the value the infrastructure itself creates, or by stealing other value from its private creators and giving it to the landowners near the infrastructure. LVT is the former choice. All other taxes are the latter choice.
    The second solution (which is really the first in terms of importance): STOP DEBAUCHING THE CURRENCY.
    Irrelevancy.
    The third solution: STOP WITHHOLDING PUBLIC LANDS FROM LANDLESS INDIVIDUALS. MAKE HOMESTEADING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT LAND A RIGHT.
    That would solve nothing. Only about 1/8 of the US land area is managed by the BLM, and most of it is effectively uninhabitable. What happens when the inhabitable part is all gone?
    If you inherited land, or already have land, you're out of luck. Declare your homestead, and it's INVIOLABLE.
    How special -- for those who already own all the good land...
    The fourth solution: ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX AND THE INCOME TAX. Neither are necessary.
    There's no reason to think that would solve anything.
    But this nonsense of making everyone renters, paying perpetual rents on land they can NEVER own -- that notion can kiss my ass forever, along with all the collectivist, socialist fantasy-land rationale invented to support it. The solution is NOT to make everyone renters. It's the opposite - make it so that everyone can be landowners. That is the ONLY solution that is sustainable, and that I would support.
    It's self-evidently not sustainable, as proved above. When all the land is owned, how does a new citizen get to be a landowner?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Land ownership is itself the biggest artificial barrier to individual liberty, prosperity and home ownership.
    How so?

  4. #423
    Question- it was said earlier on that the tax would be paid from gains in property values (even though a property owner does not get paid any sort of money for rising property values as long as they own it). Suppose we have a situation like in 2008 through today where property values are falling for an extended time. Does the government send rebate checks to everybody? Does the tax go negative? With money going out in the form of checks and none coming in from rising property values, how does the government continue to function? Borrowing and deficit spending?

    If property values stay flat does that mean that nobody owes taxes that year since it is only the "community" "reclaiming" a portion of any apreciation in values and that apreciation was zero?

    The tax would raise the costs of land ownership which would tend to concentrate land owning into the hands of the wealthier who can afford the taxes.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-17-2012 at 05:54 PM.

  5. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The tax would raise the costs of land ownership which would tend to concentrate land owning into the hands of the wealthier who can afford the taxes.
    The Warren Buffett Effect. Raise taxes on the small fish so the big strong money players can own the market without any real competition.

    I'm surprised this tax hasn't been already implemented, seeing as how efficient the monetary system is in funneling wealth from productive people into strong money's hands.
    I want more freedom and I cannot lie. No other brothers can deny. When the Fed marches in with a itty-bitty rate and the IRS takes your cake, it's no FUN!



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    How so?
    Landownership tilts the land market away from users and in favor of rent seekers and speculators, raising the cost of acquiring land. That's why working people in states with low property taxes have to sell themselves into permanent debt slavery in order to buy a house.

  8. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    How so?
    Remember, in RoyLand, everyone is perfectly suited for homeownership (contrary to observable reality, in which only a part of the population has interest and resources to even maintain a home, much less buy one).
    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

  9. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Question- it was said earlier on that the tax would be paid from gains in property values
    I don't recall who might have said that, but it's certainly not true. It's paid out of the value the landholder takes from society.
    (even though a property owner does not get paid any sort of money for rising property values as long as they own it).
    He is getting -- AND FORCIBLY DEPRIVING OTHERS OF -- the benefit of the economic advantage that makes the land more valuable, including being able to get a higher rent for it. If he doesn't want to take advantage of the value he is taking from others, that's his problem. When you take a loaf of bread home from the grocery store, you have to pay the market price for it, not the amount you think you should have to pay just to let it go moldy.
    Suppose we have a situation like in 2008 through today where property values are falling for an extended time. Does the government send rebate checks to everybody?
    LVT stops such speculative boom-bust cycles, and even if land rents declined for some reason, they'd still be positive.
    Does the tax go negative? With money going out in the form of checks and none coming in from rising property values, how does the government continue to function? Borrowing and deficit spending?
    Land rent is the most stable and reliable form of revenue government could have. That is why the rich buy land.
    If property values stay flat does that mean that nobody owes taxes that year since it is only the "community" "reclaiming" a portion of any apreciation in values and that apreciation was zero?
    The tax is on the value, not the increase in value.
    The tax would raise the costs of land ownership which would tend to concentrate land owning into the hands of the wealthier who can afford the taxes.
    Nope. Flat wrong. By increasing the cost of land OWNERSHIP, it equivalently reduces the cost of land ACQUISITION. As LVT stops the rich from getting something for nothing just by owning land, they lose all interest in owning it. LVT is by far the most effective way to make homeownership more affordable for ordinary people. You'd be able to buy a perfectly good house in a decent neighborhood for a typical month's wages (which would not be taxed).

  10. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Remember, in RoyLand, everyone is perfectly suited for homeownership (contrary to observable reality, in which only a part of the population has interest and resources to even maintain a home, much less buy one).
    Stop lying about what I have plainly written.

  11. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStandsTall View Post
    The Warren Buffett Effect. Raise taxes on the small fish so the big strong money players can own the market without any real competition.
    The fixity of land's supply means that competition is never an issue: the land market is ALWAYS inherently a monopoly market. The universal individual LVT exemption guarantees that LVT is progressive, and bears more on the big fish than the small.
    I'm surprised this tax hasn't been already implemented, seeing as how efficient the monetary system is in funneling wealth from productive people into strong money's hands.
    It's the system of private landowning that does that, as already proved, and as seen throughout history in societies with many different kinds of monetary systems.

  12. #430
    It's the system of private landowning that funnels wealth from productive people into strong money's hands, as already proved, and as seen throughout history in societies with many different kinds of monetary systems.
    Which historical civilization had the strongest private land ownership regime:

    China
    Persia
    Mayan
    India
    Middle-ages Europe

    Which one was where productive people became wealthiest, since it was the first civilization in history to experience sustained long-term per-capita economic growth?
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 03-17-2012 at 10:09 PM.

  13. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Stop lying about what I have plainly written.
    I didn't lie. You wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Landownership tilts the land market away from users and in favor of rent seekers and speculators, raising the cost of acquiring land. That's why working people in states with low property taxes have to sell themselves into permanent debt slavery in order to buy a house.
    Not to mention:
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Landownership tilts the land market away from users and in favor of rent seekers and speculators, raising the cost of acquiring land. That's why working people in states with low property taxes have to sell themselves into permanent debt slavery in order to buy a house.
    After all these pages, you keep confusing "is" and "ought".

    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 03-17-2012 at 10:11 PM.
    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

  14. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I didn't lie.
    Yes, of course you did, and now you have lied again to cover up your previous lie. That is the usual pattern.
    You wrote:
    Not to mention:

    After all these pages, you keep confusing "is" and "ought".

    And where does that say, "everyone is perfectly suited for homeownership," hmmm?

    You lied, hb. Pants on fire.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Which historical civilization had the strongest private land ownership regime:

    China
    Persia
    Mayan
    India
    Middle-ages Europep
    Pretty meaningless without the period specified. I'm not familiar with Mayan institutions, but certainly China, Persia and India all had periods when private landowning was very firmly established. For example, one of the most effective ways Islam was spread through Persia in the 7th and 8th centuries was by taxing the land owned by non-Muslims: to avoid the tax, landowners converted to Islam.
    Which one was where productive people became wealthiest, since it was the first civilization in history to experience sustained long-term per-capita economic growth?
    Well, in large areas of Middle-Ages Europe, productive people did quite well because they had rights of access to common land: the "village commons." But where land was all privately owned, the productive were normally forcibly kept at starvation level by the landowners.

  17. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I don't recall who might have said that, but it's certainly not true. It's paid out of the value the landholder takes from society.

    He is getting -- AND FORCIBLY DEPRIVING OTHERS OF -- the benefit of the economic advantage that makes the land more valuable, including being able to get a higher rent for it. If he doesn't want to take advantage of the value he is taking from others, that's his problem. When you take a loaf of bread home from the grocery store, you have to pay the market price for it, not the amount you think you should have to pay just to let it go moldy.

    LVT stops such speculative boom-bust cycles, and even if land rents declined for some reason, they'd still be positive.

    Land rent is the most stable and reliable form of revenue government could have. That is why the rich buy land.

    The tax is on the value, not the increase in value.

    Nope. Flat wrong. By increasing the cost of land OWNERSHIP, it equivalently reduces the cost of land ACQUISITION. As LVT stops the rich from getting something for nothing just by owning land, they lose all interest in owning it. LVT is by far the most effective way to make homeownership more affordable for ordinary people. You'd be able to buy a perfectly good house in a decent neighborhood for a typical month's wages (which would not be taxed).
    What value is the landowner getting from society? Say I bought a property for $100k. The value of that property goes up to $200k based on what my neighbors may have done (I didn't have to do anything to my property necessarily). Am I taking $100k from society? If so, where is that money? It is only a paper gain- I have directly received NOTHING from society. Can I take those gains and go to the store and buy a bunch of bread to take home and let get moldy? No- I can't. I can't buy anything with it. Of course if I was to SELL my land at $200k, then I have realized a profit but I don't have any gains until the day I sell it.

    If the price of gold goes from $1000 an ounce to $1500 an ounce and I purchased it at $1000, have I made $500? Absolutely not. I only make that $500 if I sell my gold at that price. As long as I hold my gold or land any apreciation in the value others are willing to pay is a benefit I do not get.

    What am I "forcibly denying" society by not selling my property and instead continuing to live on it (as I have pointed out repeatedly I don't get any society benefit as long as I continue to own the property and use it for myself).

    If the value of my land does not change, then the question of what benefit I got from society becomes even more important. There I have zero benefit from society- either in reality or on paper. And if the value of my land was to go down then it is theoretically possible that society imposed a cost on me (assuming that I receive some sort of benefit when values go up) and you said that the tax is "paid out of the value the landholder takes from society".

    Then later on you say that the tax is on the value- not the increase in value. This conflicts with the statement that "It is paid out of the value the landholder takes from society". This second statement seems to me to say that they are only taking from the increase in value- the "benefit" I allegedly receive. It seems that it is the society which is taking from me- not the other way around.

    Land rent is the most stable and reliable form of revenue government could have. That is why the rich buy land.
    The rich buy land to avoid paying rents for it. LVT is a rent on land- even if you do own it.

    You'd be able to buy a perfectly good house in a decent neighborhood for a typical month's wages (which would not be taxed).
    That is an amazing figure. It is not believable and shows that this is just a fantasy. Other than when it was offered for free via land grants, property has never been that low. Average income is about $42k a year before taxes http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml so one month's wages would be $3,500. That would mean a massive collapse in property values from where we are today which according to this link http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm is about $155,000 or a fall of nearly 98%. But you also said that the tax would mean stable land prices so it could not possibly go down by that much. Again contradicting yourself. If they are stable, they won't go up or down. Now if you are willing to sell me land at one months wages, I would definately like to talk with you about getting a couple of year's worth.

    And if land was that cheap, how much would the government be able to raise via taxing it? Unless the rate was extremely high, the collections would be practically nothing. Total households in the US as of 2006 was 114 million. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880690.html Multiply that by an average of $3,500 for a home and its land (using your one week's pay figure) and you have total base of $400 billion. A ten percent tax would generate a mere $40 billion in revenue. Interest on the debt alone for 2010 was $164 billion (and it has gone up since then) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget so you would need about a 50% tax on land if it was that price just to cover interest on the debt (I rounded up the interest on the debt to $200 billion) and nothing else.

    But I do give you credit for your persistance in promoting the issue- even if it is flawed.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-18-2012 at 08:10 PM.

  18. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What value is the landowner getting from society?
    The value of his land is identically equal to the minimum value of what he expects to take from society and not repay in taxes. That's what land value IS.
    Say I bought a property for $100k.
    That proves you expected society to give you more than $100K worth of benefits, over and above whatever you expected to be paying in property taxes.
    The value of that property goes up to $200k based on what my neighbors may have done (I didn't have to do anything to my property necessarily). Am I taking $100k from society?
    No, $200K. But you paid the previous owner $100K for the privilege of taking the first $100K from society, so from your perspective that was a wash, while the previous owner got $100K and society had $100K stolen from it. Now you expect to take another $100K from society.
    If so, where is that money?
    It's value, not money. Same thing as if you take 600 oz of gold dust out of the police evidence warehouse. It's not money. You can't take it to a store and spend it. But it is value -- wealth -- that you have stolen.
    It is only a paper gain- I have directly received NOTHING from society.
    Flat false. You have received access to the economic advantages, PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMUNITY, that make the land worth $200K. If you don't make any use of those advantages, that doesn't mean you haven't taken them from society, just as your failure to use the gold dust for anything useful does not affect the fact that you have taken it.
    Can I take those gains and go to the store and buy a bunch of bread to take home and let get moldy? No- I can't. I can't buy anything with it.
    Just like the gold dust you stole. But you still stole it, and the value of what you took is still $100K.
    Of course if I was to SELL my land at $200k, then I have realized a profit but I don't have any gains until the day I sell it.
    Wrong again. You can start pocketing that money from Day 1 by renting the place out.
    If the price of gold goes from $1000 an ounce to $1500 an ounce and I purchased it at $1000, have I made $500? Absolutely not. I only make that $500 if I sell my gold at that price.
    Wrong AGAIN. By that "logic," anyone who dealt only by barter would never gain anything, even if they obtained ownership of billions of dollars worth of non-negotiable assets. Such claims are of course always false, absurd, stupid, and dishonest.
    As long as I hold my gold or land any apreciation in the value others are willing to pay is a benefit I do not get.
    False, as proved above. If you make that claim once more, you will be lying.
    What am I "forcibly denying" society by not selling my property and instead continuing to live on it
    You are depriving society of the economic advantage obtainable by using the land. You are depriving everyone who would like to use the land of the opportunity to use it, which is not rightly yours, as it would be just the same had you never existed
    (as I have pointed out repeatedly I don't get any society benefit as long as I continue to own the property and use it for myself).
    No, I have proved you are blatantly wrong about that, so kindly do not try to repeat it: if you do, you will simply be lying. That is of course what I expect you to do.
    If the value of my land does not change, then the question of what benefit I got from society becomes even more important.
    You are getting the benefits you paid the previous owner for: the benefits that made you willing to pay the purchase price for the land. You just paid the wrong party.
    There I have zero benefit from society- either in reality or on paper.
    False and stupid, as proved above. What did you pay the previous owner for, if not the benefits you are taking from society?
    And if the value of my land was to go down then it is theoretically possible that society imposed a cost on me (assuming that I receive some sort of benefit when values go up) and you said that the tax is "paid out of the value the landholder takes from society".
    Nope. Flat wrong. Society won't have taken anything from you. It simply won't have given you all the value you expected to take when you paid the previous owner for the privilege of taking it.
    Then later on you say that the tax is on the value- not the increase in value.
    Correct.
    This conflicts with the statement that "It is paid out of the value the landholder takes from society".
    No, it does not, as proved above.
    This second statement seems to me to say that they are only taking from the increase in value- the "benefit" I allegedly receive.
    No, the landowner takes the ENTIRE land value from society. He just pays the previous landowner for the privilege of taking it.
    It seems that it is the society which is taking from me- not the other way around.
    Such claims are false, absurd, stupid, and dishonest.
    The rich buy land to avoid paying rents for it.
    No, dumpling, the rich buy land to COLLECT rents for it. That is very much the point.
    LVT is a rent on land- even if you do own it.
    It's the market value of what the landowner is taking from society, as proved above.
    That is an amazing figure. It is not believable and shows that this is just a fantasy.
    It is fact. LVT removes the exchange value of land, leaving the value of the improvements. THE SITE WOULD BE FREE TO BUY, the owner would only have to pay the periodic LVT on it. Improvements depreciate exponentially, so for much of their lifespan they are worth very little. A modest wood-frame house can be built for about $160K, and depreciates at about 4%/yr. So after 90 years it is worth about $5K. Most North American cities still have thousands of wood-frame houses built in the 1920s real estate boom, and many of them are still perfectly livable (if a bit dated), and under LVT could be purchased for a month's wages.
    Other than when it was offered for free via land grants, property has never been that low.
    Yes, it has, and is. You can find livable houses for sale at that kind of price in many cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Flint, Buffalo, etc. where land prices have crashed to near zero.
    Average income is about $42k a year before taxes http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml so one month's wages would be $3,500.
    Average income is averaged over a lot of people who are not working full time, or maybe at all.
    That would mean a massive collapse in property values from where we are today which according to this link http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm is about $155,000 or a fall of nearly 98%.
    Land value, which is the expected value of the welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner, would fall to near zero. Improvement value would hardly be affected at all.
    But you also said that the tax would mean stable land prices so it could not possibly go down by that much.
    Land prices would be stable at near zero.
    Again contradicting yourself. If they are stable, they won't go up or down.
    They will be stable AFTER they go down, and don't come up again.
    Now if you are willing to sell me land at one months wages, I would definately like to talk with you about getting a couple of year's worth.
    If you had to pay for what you took from society by owning it, you would not want any more than you intended to use.
    And if land was that cheap, how much would the government be able to raise via taxing it?
    The revenue -- up to about 20% of GDP -- would be what MADE the land so cheap.
    Unless the rate was extremely high, the collections would be practically nothing.
    Think of the rate as 100%. This would reduce land value by about 95%. So the revenue would be around 5% of current land value. This is kind of hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but I can explain it in more detail if you like.
    Total households in the US as of 2006 was 114 million. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880690.html Multiply that by an average of $3,500 for a home and its land (using your one week's pay figure) and you have total base of $400 billion.
    ?? No, my figure was for land value reduced to near zero by LVT, and it was for the cheapest livable houses in decent neighborhoods, not the average house, which is newer and much more valuable. The actual current value of residential real estate in the USA is about $20T. The great majority of that is land value.
    A ten percent tax would generate a mere $40 billion in revenue. Interest on the debt alone for 2010 was $164 billion (and it has gone up since then) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget so you would need about a 50% tax on land if it was that price just to cover interest on the debt (I rounded up the interest on the debt to $200 billion) and nothing else.
    You are making a lot of wildly wrong assumptions. To get a better idea of LVT's revenue capacity, think of the total rental value of all real estate. If you take 2/3 of that -- roughly the land value fraction -- it will be roughly LVT's potential revenue. So just to ballpark it, if there are 114M households, and the average rental value of their dwellings is $1000/month or $12K/yr (it's probably more), then the LVT revenue from residential land would be about $8K x 114M, or just under $1T. Add in non-residential land and it rises to perhaps $1.5T. Some economists estimate that eliminating other taxes would greatly increase land rents, even as much as doubling them as the economic advantage of using the land was no longer vitiated by confiscatory taxation of productive effort and investment. I'm not sure how much it would increase, as it depends on complex relationships of elasticities that are very hard to measure empirically.

  19. #436
    Just like the gold dust you stole. But you still stole it, and the value of what you took is still $100K.
    So basically owning anything is "stealing?" If I stole it, you can't tax me on it.

    No, my figure was for land value reduced to near zero by LVT
    So the value of land will be near zero which would mean that somebody who owns land is taking near zero from society and in turn society could "reclaim" a percent of that "near zero" from the owner in the form of Land Value Taxation which would be less than "near zero".

    And I am still waiting for a better answer to just what benefits I am getting from society when the value of my land goes up.

    Think of the rate as 100%. This would reduce land value by about 95%. So the revenue would be around 5% of current land value. This is kind of hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but I can explain it in more detail if you like.
    This does not necesarily work that way. If we put a 100% tax on the price of something the price of it would fall to five percent of what it was. Does a higher tax on gasoline or cigarettes cause the price before the taxes are applied go down? No- the tax is added on to the price. The costs of producing one more gallon of gas or one pack of cigarettes don't go down and their profit margin is certainly not 95 or 100% which they can afford to give up.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-20-2012 at 07:39 PM.

  20. #437
    I think a prerequisite disclosure for this thread should be whether you own real estate or are getting angry cutting that check to your landlord every month.

    Me? Home owner.

  21. #438
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    I think a prerequisite disclosure for this thread should be whether you own real estate or are getting angry cutting that check to your landlord every month.

    Me? Home owner Evil, greedy parasite.
    Fixed it for you before Roy sees it.

  22. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Fixed it for you before Roy sees it.
    LOL, that's funny. Thanks.

  23. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So basically owning anything is "stealing?"
    No. I said nothing of the sort. Please do not lie about what I have plainly written. It makes you look like you are trying to rationalize privilege and justify injustice.
    If I stole it, you can't tax me on it.
    Wrong.
    So the value of land will be near zero which would mean that somebody who owns land is taking near zero from society and in turn society could "reclaim" a percent of that "near zero" from the owner in the form of Land Value Taxation which would be less than "near zero".
    Right: the owner being obliged to repay what he takes from society is what makes the land value decline to near zero: he is no longer a net taker from society. Society can't get any more from him, as that is all he is willing to pay to use the land. As LVT is a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, market-based, value-for-value transaction, it is naturally self-limiting.
    And I am still waiting for a better answer to just what benefits I am getting from society when the value of my land goes up.
    I have already told you the facts: you are getting access to whatever increased advantages are making people willing to pay more for the land.
    This does not necesarily work that way.
    The numbers would of course not be exactly as in my example, but that's the general idea.
    If we put a 100% tax on the price of something the price of it would fall to five percent of what it was.
    Only when the price is for land (or something with similar economic characteristics), as land value is based on a perpetual future after-tax rent stream.
    Does a higher tax on gasoline or cigarettes cause the price before the taxes are applied go down?
    Yes, but not by much, as they do not get their value from expected future rents. The relationship is governed by elasticities. The demand for cigarettes, for example, is quite inelastic, so the tax does not cause the price to go down much. With land, the supply is very inelastic -- in fact it is fixed -- so the tax all comes out of the price.
    No- the tax is added on to the price.
    No. Any good introductory economics text can explain to you how taxes make before-tax prices go down.
    The costs of producing one more gallon of gas or one pack of cigarettes don't go down and their profit margin is certainly not 95 or 100% which they can afford to give up.
    The profit margin is reduced because quantity demanded is reduced.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    I think a prerequisite disclosure for this thread should be whether you own real estate or are getting angry cutting that check to your landlord every month.

    Me? Home owner.
    I have been a landlord in the past, but I still think it is a bad time to own in my area.

  26. #442

    So basically owning anything is "stealing?" If I stole it, you can't tax me on it.
    No. I said nothing of the sort. Please do not lie about what I have plainly written. It makes you look like you are trying to rationalize privilege and justify injustice.
    Really?
    No, $200K. But you paid the previous owner $100K for the privilege of taking the first $100K from society, so from your perspective that was a wash, while the previous owner got $100K and society had $100K stolen from it. Now you expect to take another $100K from society.
    and:
    Just like the gold dust you stole. But you still stole it, and the value of what you took is still $100K.
    I traded my labor for money which in turn I exchanged for in one case land and in the second case gold. You called both stealing.

    Who did I steal from? Who lost out? How did I steal the second $100k on my property if I only paid $100k for it? When the value of it goes to $200k how did I take another $100k? I didn't ask for it, I didn't take it from anybody and I certainly don't have it. I only get the $100k extra by selling the property.


    As LVT is a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, market-based, value-for-value transaction, it is naturally self-limiting.
    Ah. A voluntary system. If I choose not to participate in the LVT I don't have to pay.

    Can you try please to give examples of how society gives a landowner benefits he can be taxed on? Say my neighbor buys a vacant lot next to mine, cleans it up, and puts a big, fancy house on it. The value of his land has increased because of the use he put his property to. That makes properties next to his, like mine, more desirable and thus may have a higher perceived value than before his actions. What benefits have I personally received which are taxable? I did nothing to my land and his building a house offers me no other benefit than perhaps a nice view instead of a cluttered one.

    How about a second example. Instead of building a house, he starts a gold mine. He is producing lots of value to society with all the gold he digs up so they are better off. But the mining activities cause noise and pollution and make my land less valuable to live on though I could sell it to him to expand his mining operation. I have been harmed by his actions but society benefited. Should I be paying higher taxes in either example than I was before any changes were made to the lot next to me? If so, why?


    How is owning land taking anything from society? A land owner is more likely to take care of their property and maintain its value while land everybody (or in turn nobody) owns is more likely to be abused and misused (look up "Tragedy of the Commons").

    Yes, I have read a few economics texts in my time- I have a degree in it actually. If you add a tax to something, you are correct that the underlying price may go down- or it may not- but it will not go down by a significant amount and it will not fall by as much as the tax. It does depend on the elasticity of demand and what my costs are. I certainly can't lower the price below my costs or I go out of business. The tax becomes one of the costs of the final item and it gets added to my costs. It may reduce my profits somewhat but I still need to be profitable. I may be forced to absorb some of the tax but I am going to pass along to the consumer as much of that tax as I can.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-21-2012 at 02:29 AM.

  27. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Really?
    Yes.
    No, $200K. But you paid the previous owner $100K for the privilege of taking the first $100K from society, so from your perspective that was a wash, while the previous owner got $100K and society had $100K stolen from it. Now you expect to take another $100K from society.
    and:
    Just like the gold dust you stole. But you still stole it, and the value of what you took is still $100K.
    Land is not "anything," as "anything" includes everything, not just land. Owning some things -- like land, or slaves -- is inherently stealing, because it violates others' rights without just compensation. In such cases, what is owned is the PRIVILEGE of stealing, and having government be on your side rather than your victims' side: a legal "right" to take value from others while not contributing any value in return. Other things -- products of labor -- have been contributed, adding to the sum of wealth, so owning them does not inherently violate others' rights: they have lost nothing.
    I traded my labor for money which in turn I exchanged for in one case land and in the second case gold. You called both stealing.
    No, that is a lie. In post #435 I wrote:
    Same thing as if you take 600 oz of gold dust out of the police evidence warehouse. It's not money. You can't take it to a store and spend it. But it is value -- wealth -- that you have stolen.
    In the example I gave, you did not pay for the gold dust. If you had, that would not be stealing because the gold dust is a product of labor, not a privilege of taking value without contributing anything in return. Having paid for land does make owning it any less a theft, just as having paid for a slave does not make owning him any less a theft. In both cases, you simply paid the previous owner for the legal PRIVILEGE of stealing, because the deed to the slave or the land is not something that has been added to the sum of wealth. It just legally entitles you to take what already existed.
    Who did I steal from? Who lost out?
    All who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.
    How did I steal the second $100k on my property if I only paid $100k for it?
    By depriving others of more valuable advantages than you paid for.
    When the value of it goes to $200k how did I take another $100k? ]I didn't ask for it, I didn't take it from anybody and I certainly don't have it. I only get the $100k extra by selling the property.
    Consider a slave who learns how to be more productive, so that his value is doubled. The wages you are stealing from him have likewise doubled. You don't have to sell him to be taking that additional value from him.

    GET IT??
    Ah. A voluntary system. If I choose not to participate in the LVT I don't have to pay.
    That is correct. But government will not help you exclude others from more than your equal share of the good land. And in fact, if you are occupying land that someone is willing to pay the tax on while you are not, government will dispossess you of that land and secure legal possession to the one who is willing to pay for what he takes.
    Can you try please to give examples of how society gives a landowner benefits he can be taxed on?
    I have done so, several times: roads, water and sewer systems, schools, sanitation services, hospitals and free medical care, port and airport facilities, police and fire protection, the list goes on and on.
    Say my neighbor buys a vacant lot next to mine, cleans it up, and puts a big, fancy house on it. The value of his land has increased because of the use he put his property to.
    No, it has not. The unimproved value is the same (assuming nothing else has happened).
    That makes properties next to his, like mine, more desirable and thus may have a higher perceived value than before his actions.
    Right. The unimproved value of YOUR lot has probably increased a bit, not his.
    What benefits have I personally received which are taxable?
    The more desirable aspect of the land you occupy.
    I did nothing to my land and his building a house offers me no other benefit than perhaps a nice view instead of a cluttered one.
    Bingo. You are now forcibly depriving others of an opportunity that is more valuable that it was before.
    How about a second example. Instead of building a house, he starts a gold mine. He is producing lots of value to society with all the gold he digs up so they are better off.
    He is presumably charging full market value for the gold. Society as a whole is wealthier, so he is not stealing, but neither is he running a charity. His employees are better off, etc., but that is a matter of increased surplus through voluntary exchange, not increased land value.
    But the mining activities cause noise and pollution and make my land less valuable to live on though I could sell it to him to expand his mining operation.
    Land value is based on its most productive permitted use, not the existing use.
    I have been harmed by his actions but society benefited. Should I be paying higher taxes in either example than I was before any changes were made to the lot next to me? If so, why?
    The value of what you are depriving others of is greater. You may have been harmed (the value of your improvements has declined) but you are harming society even more by blocking the more productive use.
    How is owning land taking anything from society?
    You deprive others of the opportunity to use it. That is self-evident and indisputable.
    A land owner is more likely to take care of their property and maintain its value
    Land does not need maintenance to stay in its natural state or retain its unimproved value (it may need to be defended against vandals, but that is actually the police's job, not the owner's, and is mainly a symptom of dysfunctional city government).
    [
    while land everybody (or in turn nobody) owns is more likely to be abused and misused
    Nope. Publicly owned land in Hong Kong does not seem to be abused and misused. It is used very productively.
    (look up "Tragedy of the Commons").
    I know it far better than you. Garrett Hardin, the author of "The Tragedy of the Commons," said later that his work had been misappropriated and misinterpreted by the right, and he wished he had called it, "The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons," because what he was arguing for was intelligent public stewardship of commons, not their privatization. Historically, ACTUAL village commons were managed to prevent abuse that would impair their productivity.
    Yes, I have read a few economics texts in my time- I have a degree in it actually.
    No, you don't, or you could not be making such economically ignorant comments.
    If you add a tax to something, you are correct that the underlying price may go down- or it may not- but it will not go down by a significant amount and it will not fall by as much as the tax.
    Depending on the relevant elasticities, it may go down by almost as much as the tax. Consider a good for which there are close but untaxed substitutes and elastic demand, like imported booze subject to a tariff.
    It does depend on the elasticity of demand and what my costs are. I certainly can't lower the price below my costs or I go out of business.
    Other producers may be more efficient. That is why you can't just pass on tax costs and expect consumers to pay them, any more than you can just pass on any other cost you incur. The difference with tax costs is that all the other producers presumably incur the same cost; but with land that is not the case, as there is no producer of land, only "consumers."
    The tax becomes one of the costs of the final item and it gets added to my costs.
    No, you are mistaking land's ACQUISITION cost for a PRODUCTION cost. Two entirely different things. There is no production cost of land, as its supply is fixed. Such elementary errors are how I know you cannot possibly have a degree in economics.
    It may reduce my profits somewhat but I still need to be profitable. I may be forced to absorb some of the tax but I am going to pass along to the consumer as much of that tax as I can.
    Which in the case of land is zero, as the supply is fixed.
    Last edited by Roy L; 03-21-2012 at 02:23 PM.

  28. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Owning some things -- like land, or slaves -- is inherently stealing, because it violates others' rights without just compensation.
    There's part of your lunacy in a nutbag shell. Can't violate others' rights "without just compensation"? No, Roy, if it is indeed a right, you shouldn't violate it PERIOD. There is no "just compensation" to it. Assuming we are talking about an actual right, and not "otherwise would be at liberty capacity" logic stretched to absurd extremes and force-molded into what you think ought to be a right.

    And conflating land with slaves? That has always been your geolib (read="Free The Land!", or "Let my people land go...") gibberish.

    GET IT??

    "Forcibly depriving others of an opportunity that is more valuable that it was before" is stupid because opportunities abound elsewhere. It's the "specific place" from which they are forcibly prevented/deprived. Nothing wrong with that, they didn't have a "right", and the deprivation is just. Go get your own place. Don't go crying to gov-Mommy that so-and-so won't "justly compensate you" for your well-deserved deprivation.

    Land value is based on its most productive permitted use, not the existing use.
    No, remember? The community soaks land value magically into the ground. The value has nothing to do with how it's used, or even how it could be used. All that nature, community and government "provided" infrastructure gives the land its value - not existing or "most productive permitted" use. I remember that pretzel well.

    You may have been harmed (the value of your improvements has declined) but you are harming society even more by blocking the more productive use.
    Get out of your aggregate thinking nutshell, and stop anthropomorphizing collectives. "Society" isn't harmed or helped by anything. INDIVIDUALS ONLY are harmed and helped - at all times. You would do well to learn that, and remember it.

  29. #445
    There we go. See? This is the right thread to talk about this in.

    Actually, the old one was the right thread, I think. No, there is no database problem with long threads. One LVT thread is enough, that's how I feel. But, I suppose one at a time is a reasonable compromise.

    LVT has perhaps not been tried fully. There are example places where it's been put into place to a greater or lesser extent, but nothing decisive. One can look at these partial examples and argue that it shows LVT would work, or that it shows that it wouldn't.

    An-cap/Voluntaryism/radical libertarianism is in much the same boat. There has never been a society which intentionally and fully designed itself to be completely voluntary with the necessary intellectual framework and institutions to make it resilient, certainly not in modern times.

    Let's have NH be pure an-cap, Vermont be pure Georgist, and come back in 30 years to see what happened.

  30. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    No, there is no database problem with long threads.
    That was the reason given for limiting thread size on another forum. I don't know enough about how this forum works to know if the same reasoning applies.
    LVT has perhaps not been tried fully. There are example places where it's been put into place to a greater or lesser extent, but nothing decisive. One can look at these partial examples and argue that it shows LVT would work, or that it shows that it wouldn't.
    No, one can't argue that any of the examples show LVT wouldn't work, because all the examples show it does work.
    An-cap/Voluntaryism/radical libertarianism is in much the same boat. There has never been a society which intentionally and fully designed itself to be completely voluntary with the necessary intellectual framework and institutions to make it resilient, certainly not in modern times.

    Let's have NH be pure an-cap, Vermont be pure Georgist, and come back in 30 years to see what happened.
    How do you recommend VT handle the flood of refugees from NH?

  31. #447
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Can't violate others' rights "without just compensation"? No, Roy, if it is indeed a right, you shouldn't violate it PERIOD. There is no "just compensation" to it.
    Of course there is. That's what civil courts are for, for one thing. Are you really that ignorant of such basic facts of social existence?
    Assuming we are talking about an actual right, and not "otherwise would be at liberty capacity" logic stretched to absurd extremes and force-molded into what you think ought to be a right.
    Freedom to do what one would "otherwise would be at liberty" to do is exactly what a right to liberty IS. Your absurd and evil notion of rights says that slaves had no rights to liberty because "Oh, look, they have fetters on their ankles, if they had a right to liberty they wouldn't be fettered."

    One could not possibly overstate the stupidity and dishonesty of such "arguments."
    And conflating land with slaves? That has always been your geolib (read="Free The Land!", or "Let my people land go...") gibberish.
    I have proved it is not gibberish. The only difference between owning land and owning slaves is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights.
    "Forcibly depriving others of an opportunity that is more valuable that it was before" is stupid because opportunities abound elsewhere.
    LOL! Such "arguments" are just cretinous. Yes, there are opportunities elsewhere: opportunities to waste your labor and capital where they cannot be productive; to starve or die of exposure on worthless, uninhabitable land while a greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowner hoards good land out of use, blah, blah. The fact that opportunities abound elsewhere is completely irrelevant to the fact that the landowner is forcibly depriving others of the opportunities he controls, just as the opportunity to expound one's political opinions out in the wilderness is irrelevant to the fact that stopping people from criticizing the government in ANY public place is a violation of their rights to freedom of speech.
    It's the "specific place" from which they are forcibly prevented/deprived.
    And all the opportunities associated with it.
    Nothing wrong with that,
    Wrong. As I have proved, it violates people's rights without just compensation.
    they didn't have a "right",
    I have proved they did.
    and the deprivation is just.
    No, it's pure evil.
    Go get your own place.
    "Go get your own liberty. Just save up your money and buy it from your owner."

    Such "arguments" are infinitely evil.
    Don't go crying to gov-Mommy that so-and-so won't "justly compensate you" for your well-deserved deprivation.
    "Don't go crying to gov-Mommy that so-and-so won't "justly compensate you" for your well-deserved enslavement."

    It is government's JOB to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. When your rights are being violated without just compensation, it is the mark of a civilized human being (nothing you would know anything about, to be sure) to petition government for relief and redress, not to take matters into your own hands like some sort of feudal libertarian vigilante.
    No, remember?
    I remember your claims are never based on facts.
    The community soaks land value magically into the ground. The value has nothing to do with how it's used,
    True. Unimproved land value is exactly that: that value the bare land would have, independently of anything that is being done on it or improvements that are sitting on it.
    or even how it could be used.
    No, you are just telling stupid lies again, Steven. The value is ENTIRELY dependent on how it could be used, as proved by the fact that a simple zoning change can make it worth many times more than it was.
    All that nature, community and government "provided" infrastructure gives the land its value - not existing or "most productive permitted" use.
    The advantages government, the community and nature provide DEFINE what the most productive use is, given the limits of what is legally permitted.
    Get out of your aggregate thinking nutshell, and stop anthropomorphizing collectives.
    I have not done that. Stop lying about what I have plainly written.
    "Society" isn't harmed or helped by anything.
    No, such claims are just stupid. Societies emerge, exist for a time, and die, much as any organism does. To claim that defeat in war, for example, does not harm a society is simply idiotic.
    INDIVIDUALS ONLY are harmed and helped - at all times. You would do well to learn that, and remember it.
    I won't be learning any such cretinous, quasi-autistic drivel, thanks. You would do well to learn that societies do in fact exist, and remember it.

  32. #448
    Kindly refrain from personal attacks. 'Stupid, cretinous, quasi-autistic drivil' counts as an attack.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Of course there is. That's what civil courts are for, for one thing. Are you really that ignorant of such basic facts of social existence?
    Are you ignorant of the fact that this^^ is a false fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It is government's JOB to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. When your rights are being violated without just compensation, it is the mark of a civilized human being (nothing you would know anything about, to be sure) to petitiongovernment for relief and redress, not to take matters into your own hands like some sort of feudal libertarian vigilante.
    This is just wishful thinking. This has never been and never will be the purpose of government. It's just a lie perpetuated by State-run indoctrination centers (aka "public schools"). The State is always and everywhere the greatest violator of rights.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 03-22-2012 at 05:02 PM.
    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

  35. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Freedom to do what one would "otherwise would be at liberty" to do is exactly what a right to liberty IS.
    False, and certainly not according to your intended meaning.

    Example 1 (pass)

    I am kidnapped, or otherwise unlawfully detained, I would "otherwise have been at liberty" to choose my own path. However, I have been deprived of my "rightful" liberty (already established as a right) in the process. Thus, I have a "cause of action".

    Example 2 (fail)

    I am walking along, exercising my right to liberty, and encounter a brick wall and a locked door - the exterior that encloses the vault area of a bank. Had the bank not existed, I would "otherwise have been at liberty" to enter that space. That is indisputable. It is also indisputable that I am "deprived" of my liberty (my capacity and ability, but not my right) to enter and occupy that space. Because no right is established, I have no cause of action.

    Example 3 (fail)

    I am prevented, both physically and legally, from taking a piece of gold that someone finds on public ground (National Park, whatever), and is now in their possession.

    I could truthfully say that:

    a) I have "suffered" a deprivation, and that
    b) I would "otherwise be at liberty" to have that gold (i.e., if that person had not found it, did not possess it, or had not even existed)

    Those are undeniable indisputable facts, and yet there is no right of possession on my part, no unjustified deprivation, and no cause of action.

    So, no, your "'otherwise would be at liberty' to do is exactly what a right to liberty IS" fails as any kind of definitive or axiomatic statement.

Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:54 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders- This Land is Your Land
    By Origanalist in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 09:16 PM
  3. BLM Anthem? "This Land Is Their Land"
    By Occam's Banana in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
  4. Land yacht? Try Land Ocean Liner!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 05:32 PM
  5. Single Tax?
    By yongrel in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 02:59 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
  •