Page 66 of 68 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 LastLast
Results 1,951 to 1,980 of 2026

Thread: What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #1951
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post

    You can't rebut it. Every day in every way since Prop 13 passed, CA gets worse and worse.
    So if they just had the ability to raise taxes everything would be fine?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1952
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    So if they just had the ability to raise taxes everything would be fine?
    If CA recovered publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners, most things would be a lot better (LVT admittedly wouldn't stop the evil and insane War on Drugs, or other problems that are unrelated to land and taxation).



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #1953
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    If CA recovered publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners, most things would be a lot better (LVT admittedly wouldn't stop the evil and insane War on Drugs, or other problems that are unrelated to land and taxation).
    Why not just cut spending and privatize many state functions? That makes more sense to me than increase taxes.

  6. #1954
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Why not just cut spending and privatize many state functions? That makes more sense to me than increase taxes.
    Because then you can't get even with the "evil" rent-seekers by taking their money and handing it too "the poor"-all necessary in Roy L's utopian fantasy land.
    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

  7. #1955
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Why not just cut spending and privatize many state functions?
    Because private interests cannot perform most of those functions as efficiently as the state.
    That makes more sense to me than increase taxes.
    LVT is not a tax increase. It replaces unjust and destructive taxes that confiscate privately created value with a just and beneficial tax that recovers publicly created value for public purposes and benefit. By solving the economic problems caused by those unjust and destructive taxes, it would allow a great reduction in total government spending. The more government subsidizes landowning, the more social problems it creates, and the more it will spend futilely trying to solve them. You just don't understand that by refusing to consider liberty and justice, you guarantee government has to get bigger.

  8. #1956
    Watch this.

    spikednationdotcom/evideo/epa-will-$#@!-you

    You don't need LVT.
    Last edited by flynn; 03-11-2012 at 05:55 PM.

  9. #1957
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Because private interests cannot perform most of those functions as efficiently as the state.
    Oh wow, I never thought your posts could reach this level of stupidity.

    Proposal:

    Privatize/turn over to local government virtually all state government functions
    Levy user fees on remaining services
    Abolish taxes

  10. #1958
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Because then you can't get even with the "evil" rent-seekers by taking their money
    Rent is money (actually wealth) the rent seekers have stolen from the productive with government's help. Government should take that money back instead of stealing even more from the productive in taxes.
    and handing it too "the poor"-all necessary in Roy L's utopian fantasy land.
    No, you're just lying again about what I have plainly written. I have never advocated giving money to the poor. I advocate restoring EVERYONE'S EQUAL individual rights to liberty by EXEMPTING EVERYONE EQUALLY from paying LVT on enough good land for a normal person to live on. Some geoists advocate an equal, universal citizens' dividend (not payments only to the poor) funded by LVT, but I am not one of them.

  11. #1959
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Oh wow, I never thought your posts could reach this level of stupidity.
    You just don't know anything about market failures or the economics of public goods.
    Proposal:

    Privatize/turn over to local government virtually all state government functions
    Levy user fees on remaining services
    Abolish taxes
    Silliness. Google "public goods" and start reading.

  12. #1960
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    You just don't know anything about market failures or the economics of public goods.

    Silliness. Google "public goods" and start reading.
    Socks can be public goods.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #1961
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Socks can be public goods.
    Windsocks, maybe...

  15. #1962
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Windsocks, maybe...
    No, I mean the garment

    First, there is a health ques- tion. People who do not wear socks are liable to colds, sore feet, blisters, and possibly pneumonia. And sickness means lost days of work and lost production; it means possible contagion (as in the diphtheria case); it may result in rising doctor bills and increased health insurance premiums for other policyholders. Increased demand for doctors' time and energy will result in reduced medical attention for others. There is, in addition, an aesthetic problem: many people take umbrage at socklessness. Restaurants often forbid bare feet, presumably in the interests of retaining their more sensitive customers. Not wearing socks is also interpreted by some as a disturbing political statement, like flag or draft-card burning. Many mothers-a third party, if ever there was one-rejoice when their "hip" sons f d l y don footwear. That benefits of sock-wearing "spill over" to these mothers cannot be denied.

    http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

  16. #1963
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post

    No, you're just lying again about what I have plainly written. I have never advocated giving money to the poor. I advocate restoring EVERYONE'S EQUAL individual rights to liberty by EXEMPTING EVERYONE EQUALLY from paying LVT on enough good land for a normal person to live on. Some geoists advocate an equal, universal citizens' dividend (not payments only to the poor) funded by LVT, but I am not one of them.
    Except your claim that everyone has an equal claim to property is a figment of your (and other geoists') imagination. How does one determine "enough good land for a normal person to live on". "Good" is subjective, as is "enough". The whole system you want is completely arbitrary and illogical. Let the ancient, backward places in the world like Hong Kong have your LVT. I prefer freedom.
    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

  17. #1964
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Except your claim that everyone has an equal claim to property
    I made no such claim, stop lying. Everyone has an equal right to liberty.
    is a figment of your (and other geoists') imagination. How does one determine "enough good land for a normal person to live on".
    Statistically, by looking at how much land, by value, people actually use.
    "Good" is subjective, as is "enough".
    Nope. Good is measured by value, and so is enough.
    The whole system you want is completely arbitrary and illogical.
    No, it makes perfect economic and moral sense, and has consequently been advocated by some of the most brilliant economists and philosophers who ever lived. You are not one of them, and are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.
    Let the ancient, backward places in the world like Hong Kong
    ?? ROTFL!! You again disqualify yourself from economic discussion.
    have your LVT. I prefer freedom.
    HK routinely tops lists of the world's freest economies.

  18. #1965
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    No, I mean the garment

    First, there is a health ques- tion. People who do not wear socks are liable to colds, sore feet, blisters, and possibly pneumonia. And sickness means lost days of work and lost production; it means possible contagion (as in the diphtheria case); it may result in rising doctor bills and increased health insurance premiums for other policyholders. Increased demand for doctors' time and energy will result in reduced medical attention for others. There is, in addition, an aesthetic problem: many people take umbrage at socklessness. Restaurants often forbid bare feet, presumably in the interests of retaining their more sensitive customers. Not wearing socks is also interpreted by some as a disturbing political statement, like flag or draft-card burning. Many mothers-a third party, if ever there was one-rejoice when their "hip" sons f d l y don footwear. That benefits of sock-wearing "spill over" to these mothers cannot be denied.

    http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf
    What a load of stupid, irrelevant, anti-economic garbage. Rivalrous. Excludable. Learn them or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

  19. #1966
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    What a load of stupid, irrelevant, anti-economic garbage. Rivalrous. Excludable. Learn them or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.
    In other words, you have no legitimate response. So you instead respond with your version of:


  20. #1967
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    You are not one of them, and are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.
    Neither are you. Does this mean you are going to admit that you aren't qualified to have an opinion and stop posting about this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Nope. Good is measured by value, and so is enough
    LMFAO!!! So, you think you've solved an issue that has kept philosophers and ethicists completely divided for thousands of years this way? Value itself is subjective and clearly isn't enough. You don't even have an objective definition of "value" yet. Is it what markets determine? What States determine? Utility? Labor? I asked you to start thinking earlier several times, Roy. Please TRY it before responding again.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 03-12-2012 at 12:38 AM.
    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

  21. #1968
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    In other words, you have no legitimate response.
    There was nothing to respond to. The quoted passage was pretending to talk about public goods, but clearly had no idea what they are.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #1969
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Neither are you. Does this mean you are going to admit that you aren't qualified to have an opinion and stop posting about this?
    Unlike you, I have done the reading, and know the relevant economics.
    So, you think you've solved an issue that has kept philosophers and ethicists completely divided for thousands of years this way?
    What issue would that be? (Prediction: you will equivocate)
    Value itself is subjective and clearly isn't enough.
    Value is not subjective. That's anti-economic rubbish. Value is what an item can be exchanged for in the market. As that requires at least two opinions, it cannot be subjective by definition. The Austrian School's subjective theory of value is simply anti-economic rubbish.
    You don't even have an objective definition of "value" yet.
    Value is not objective either, and I have told you the definition many times. See above.
    Is it what markets determine?
    Yep.
    What States determine? Utility? Labor?
    Nope.

  24. #1970
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I know you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't care that that means others can neither have nor eat theirs.
    Well, you don't deserve any cake, that's for sure. Not until you stop advocating cake theft.

    The current system requires the productive to pay for government TWICE so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.
    Twisted, convoluted failed logic, but if it's any consolation, there shouldn't have been a ONCE to any of that. It's not an either/or proposition for me. No compulsory income tax, no confiscatory property tax. And certainly no LVT. Perish that evil thought. None of them are necessary.

    LVT eliminates that something-for-nothing payment to the landowner, ensuring that everyone pays only once for what they take from society.
    NASTY FILTHY LIE. That's the nature of rent payments, Roy: they almost always go up, and they never go away. You pay and pay - the payments ALWAYS come due, and nothing is every truly "PAID IN FULL". It has no relation on ANYTHING you might receive in return - that's always presumed.

    You just want to take from society without paying for what you take, and to accomplish that you want to force, repeat, FORCE the productive to pay twice for what they take.
    ANOTHER NASTY FILTHY LIE. I want the income tax (ALL tax on labor, including hidden taxes from currency debasement) ABOLISHED.

    You are the ONLY one between us that wants to force a choice between what I see as two completely foul and unnecessary taxes. Cause yousa lubbsa gubmint.

    You demand to have your cake and eat it, too. Simple.
    Yes. It's that simple. Keep and be secure in what you own, including land. No thieves, even collectivist thieves (the worst kind of al) need apply.

    Because he now holds the land that the tax liability comes from. Duh.
    Yes, you idiot, but we weren't talking about him. We were talking about the one who was thrown off the land.

    <yawn> The evil always accuse the virtuous of the very sins of which they are themselves most guilty.
    Do you assume that you are virtuous, and did you make yourself an exception to the two-edged sword rule?

    Nonsense. A forced eviction can ensue any time someone forcibly excludes others from land they don't pay for. Whether they are ABLE to pay is a different question from whether they DO pay.
    Moron. We are only talking about ability to pay. Not willingness.

    What would stop them from using their individual exemption to obtain accommodation better suited to their needs and means, as honest, responsible, mature adults do every day?
    Oh, I don't know - perhaps the fact that such an individual exemption does not yet exist, and the amount of which fiction has not yet been determined by anyone in power? We don't have any way of knowing what, if anything, the VALUE of such an exemption - IF IT WAS DECIDED UPON, WHICH IT HAS NOT - would cover.

    Get out of fantasy-land, Roy. You're talking in completely irrelevant hypothetical fictions, with no basis in reality. Under property taxes, the elderly and disabled are often given "exemptions" which only amount to a small discount. So we do have that to go on, at least.

    It means their ability to pay ISN'T exceeded. That is exactly the free market allocation mechanism whereby LVT is always affordable, and never exceeds the landholder's ability to pay.
    Well, of course, because by definition, anyone whose ass was forcibly removed from land for their inability to pay is no longer the "landholder", while those who took their places only did so because THEY had the ability to pay. Freakishly dishonest of you, Roy. Nasty, nasty stuff.

    You are just crying like a spoiled little girl -- or is it like a greedy, whiny, lying, infantile sociopath? -- because you want to eat cake from the grocery store that you are not willing to pay for.
    No, it's not a grocery store, Roy. With a grocery store, you pay for what you can afford, and you actually own (and make dispose of as you please) whatever it is you PAY for. The state perpetually renting out land that it never created, based on highest bidders only, with no actual "sale" allowed, is nothing but a case of THEFT. A total scam.

    There is no way to allocate exclusive use of land but by force.
    When the state forcibly removes someone from land for non-payment of a PERPETUAL RENT TAX is only defending ITS claim to that rent. Not someone else's "rights" to that property, but rather someone's privilege to occupy that property based solely on their ability to pay (THE STATE). The state doesn't give two $#@!s about who pays the rent, so long as the highest bidder is yielded to at all times.

    Well done, Deng Xiao Ping - you don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat, so long as it catches mice (FOR THE STATE).

    Nonsense. You just move to accommodation better suited to your needs and means, as people who are not greedy, whiny, lying, infantile sociopaths do every day.
    Hey, state-favoring sociopath, you're making the present-day landlord's argument.

    Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right, I forgot: it's only brute force when government does it to you, not when you do it to everyone else...
    Everyone else doesn't have a claim, or right of liberty as you would like to see it recognized. All zombies must hang.

    ?? Of course you can't forcibly exclude others from all the good land you want without paying for it.
    There's no such thing as "paying for it" under an LVT. All you can do is pay a "use privilege rent". Perpetually. Nothing is ever paid in full.

    That doesn't mean LVT exceeds ability to pay. It just means you aren't WILLING to pay as much as control of the land makes you ABLE to pay.
    Some aren't WILLING. Others become INCAPABLE. Without regard to "willingness". Any non-sociopathic human being with a soul (as well as every True Scotsman) understands that.

    You are just sniveling because under LVT you can't take everything you want without paying for it.
    No, Roy, I'm tired of you sniveling on behalf of the state for trying to take ALL LAND and rent it out to everyone without paying for it.

    Oh, stop prevaricating. I never said LVT couldn't exceed the value you wanted to take from others and not pay for. I said it couldn't exceed the value you took.
    That's your bull$#@! house of cards premises at work --- that land is not "ownable", that somehow infrastructure isn't fully PAID FOR as services are rendered and payments come due, along with the fiction of "community created value" that makes the state the corporate monopoly owner of a land rental taxing scam. Nobody PAID FOR the land originally. Even if you're not religious, you can say that "Earth" provided land, just as it "provided" us, just as the Big Bang provided both.

    And you don't speak on behalf of Earth.

    THAT value is what confers the ability to pay. Not the WILLINGNESS, which is what you are whining about.
    Another of your convoluted idiocies at work, proving that you lack critical thinking skills. The VALUE of the land does not automatically confer an "ability to [exchange value for something else] pay". Could you be more daft? The "ability to pay", assuming any payment is even due ANYONE, can come from the land (i.e., plant a farm, sell a crop - dig a mine, sell some ore), but that same ability to pay, whatever it is, can also originate EXTERNALLY from that land.

    It is absolute blithering idiocy to suggest that land AUTOMATICALLY CONFERS "the ability to pay".

    You still have the ability to pay it. Same as if you take home a cake from the grocery store, bought on credit. If you have the cake, you have the ability to pay for it, because (in principle) you can always just sell it to someone else who likes the same kind of cake in order to pay the store.
    Again with the blithering lunacy, which assumes (in principle) that finding another buyer for something you want is the same thing as having the ability to pay. NO, YOU BLITHERING MORON - all you have done is found SOMEONE ELSE who has the ability to pay. THEY PAY, THEY EAT. You aren't part of the picture any more.

    It really takes an insanely collectivist mindset to lack the ability to distinguish between your ability to pay and someone else's. You conflate the two because you're an idiot collectivist with no concept of the individual! If I can find someone with the ability to pay, somehow that means that I had the ability to pay! That's some kind of goof-stupid logic you have going there.

    What you want to do is eat the cake, and then claim that the grocery store is charging you more than you are able to pay, because you can no longer sell it to someone else in order to pay the store for it. The stupidity and dishonesty of such an "argument" stagger the imagination.
    Again, proof of absolute idiocy. I'm hungry, so I go to the store. According to you there's no problem, as I have the ability to pay for EVERYTHING in the store. Why? Because (in principle, says you), I can always find someone ELSE who able and willing to pay for it all. Of course, they would be the ones eating, and that little zero-sum cancel-me-out game has ZERO to with what I personally have the ability to pay. But not to you. You honestly think that is the same as MY ability to pay. Moron, your bus is leaving...

    And again you repeat your absolute stupidity when you say:

    Control of the land automatically confers ability to pay for it.
    Proved otherwise above. You are certifiable based on that statement alone. A special ed needs child all the way, completely disconnected from reality.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-12-2012 at 03:36 AM.

  25. #1971
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post


    Roy L..
    LVT eliminates that something-for-nothing payment to the landowner, ensuring that everyone pays only once for what they take from society.
    NASTY FILTHY LIE. That's the nature of rent payments,
    Roy is 100% correct. We pay twice for many things as this clearly shows.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4267046

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Roy L..
    You just want to take from society without paying for what you take, and to accomplish that you want to force, repeat, FORCE the productive to pay twice for what they take.
    ANOTHER NASTY FILTHY LIE. I want the income tax (ALL tax on labor, including hidden taxes from currency debasement) ABOLISHED.
    The Single Tax with LVT as its core does exactly that. That is what Roy L is advocating.

  26. #1972
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    Roy is 100% correct. We pay twice for many things as this clearly shows.
    No, we pay MANY more times than twice. From compulsory, confiscatory revenue streams that should never have existed even ONCE. If the tax isn't 100% voluntary, it is 100% theft.

    The Single Tax with LVT as its core does exactly that. That is what Roy L is advocating.
    The "Single Tax" with LVT is a way of socializing EVERYTHING - including wages. It's easy in such a regime to milk wages - you can do it with zoning laws alone. Increase the artificial scarcity of available land, and watch the property values increase, and the wages as they get coughed up.

    Even if the decision was made to do away with other taxes, it's only a tax shift to the ONE TAX over which you have ZERO CONTROL. If income goes done, so does your income tax. That's not an argument for income taxes, which should never have existed - only showing its superiority over LVT. If spending goes down, so do your sales taxes. But the ad valorem tax is different. It's not based on you, and does not give a rat $#@! about your condition or your ability to pay. You are NEVER SECURE. You are on a taxation treadmill over which you have no control FOREVER.

    Of course, if you're Roy L., you'll see total individual control - because you can move to $#@!tier land - if'n it's available. You can apply your "LVT EXEMPTION" too - if'n there is one, and it's worth anything at all.

    Ah, but once land is socialized, what happens then? Economic Development Zones, naturally. LVT abatements for the well-healed and well connected - subsidies, corporate welfare (to attract business to the community, natch). Until half the population isn't paying the tax anyway (like what they're fighting now in North Dakota), and it's all heaped onto the backs of those who NEVER get abatements or special favors - but still have to cough up their WAGES to pay RENT on SOCIALIZED LAND.

    "But the people of India are untouched.
    Their politics are confined to bread and salt.
    Illiterate they may be, but they're not blind.
    They see no reason to give their loyalty to
    rich and powerful men who simply want to take
    over the role of the [LANDLORDS] in the name of 'freedom.'"
    - Gandhi 1982
    Just substituted "Landlords" for "British". It works.

    Friggin socialist scammers, breathing other people's perfectly good air. Air we all would otherwise be at liberty to breathe if they did not exist.

  27. #1973
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    No, we pay MANY more times than twice.
    Thanks.It is even worse. With LVT we only pay once.

    The "Single Tax" with LVT is a way of socializing EVERYTHING - including wages.
    That is strange. Wages are the result of CAPITAL. LVT reclaims the wealth that soaked into the LAND. LAND & CAPITAL are two separate factors of production.

    Reagan & Thatcher rigged wages (CAPITAL) and hence the free-market. Why we are in the situation we are in now, as the create demand as wages were suppressed they liberalized credit and and Tom, Dick or Harry could get into heavy debt. The debt was poured into tax free LAND. This animation shows it....


    Here is an assessment of what caused the Credit Crunch. David Harvey is at NY uni. He happens to be a Marxist, but do not not allow that to cloud your viewing. He is just stating facts of how the crises came about. He said at the end he doesn't have a solution, so no Marxist theories are being put forward. BTW, most of Marx writing were about the failures of Capitalism, which were pretty spot on. Marx conclusion on how to solve the problem was off-mark. He locked horns with henry George over the Single Tax on grappling with a solution.

    One thing stands out. The free-market was rigged by Reagan and Thatcher, in LABOR, who also off-shored manufacturing to China. Then to spark the economy, because labor costs were driven down, they dreamt up credit for all. Then kaboooooom!




    Even if the decision was made to do away with other taxes, it's only a tax shift to the ONE TAX over which you have ZERO CONTROL. If income goes done, so does your income tax.
    The state control is the percentage rate they set the LVT at. After that it is self-regulating. If the economy drops so does your LVT. If the district you live in drops in value for whatever reason so does the LVT.

    You can move to an internal tax haven by moving to a lower LVT town or district - that doers not mean poorer quality district. If you want to live in the boonies, your LVT will be pennies as the land is not worth much at all. It scales up and down naturally for all.

    Land is not socialized under LVT. If it was it would be leased out as in Hong Kong. LVT caters for private ownership - all stays the same.


    Martin Wolf, Chief Economist of the Financial Times....

    "Even if the state owned all land, it could auction its use (like the spectrum). Again, this is a perfectly adequate price discovery mechanism. It could then lease the land for long periods and renew the leases, again at auction. All these are perfectly valid price-setting mechanisms."

    "leaseholds can always be resold in the market, too."


    LVT fits into any political ism. Take your pick.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-12-2012 at 08:12 AM.

  28. #1974
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Air we all would otherwise be at liberty to breathe if they did not exist.
    Air, provided by nature and not man, is not charged for. So why are we charge for using land? Land is another aspect provided free by nature and not man. By men charge us for using land. How perverse.

  29. #1975
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    Air, provided by nature and not man, is not charged for. So why are we charge for using land?
    I agree. Stop advocating it at once.

  30. #1976
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    Air, provided by nature and not man, is not charged for. So why are we charge for using land? Land is another aspect provided free by nature and not man. By men charge us for using land. How perverse.
    I agree, no one should have to pay to continue to own their land. Abolish ALL property taxes, that includes LVT.

    Either that or be philosophically consistent and advocate an AVT (air value tax).



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #1977
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    I agree, no one should have to pay to continue to own their land. Abolish ALL property taxes, that includes LVT.
    LVT does not charge you owning your land. You pay once and only once for the land. LVT reclaims community created wealth that soaked into the land. The wealth in the land is NOT the landowners. You have difficulty with is - just accept it for now.

    LVT is liberating.
    Last edited by JohnLVT; 03-12-2012 at 09:39 AM.

  33. #1978
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    I agree. Stop advocating it at once.
    So no land ownership and renting it out then. That is what you want?

  34. #1979
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    So no land ownership and renting it out then. That is what you want?
    No, that's what you want, and to which you would pledge socialist parasitic allegiance:

    One nation, under LVT, indivisible, with zero landownership and perpetual rents for all.

  35. #1980
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    I agree, no one should have to pay to continue to own their land. Abolish ALL property taxes, that includes LVT.

    Either that or be philosophically consistent and advocate an AVT (air value tax).
    Don't forget the SVT, WVT, and CVT (Sun, Water, Carbon, respectively).
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul



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. A Man and his Land.
    By TomtheTinker in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 02:06 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
  •