Page 7 of 68 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 2026

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

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Everybody trying to re-invent the wheel here.

    Tariffs and duties.
    Check out the ONLY source of federal revenue in the Articles of Confederation the Founding Fathers wrote before the Constitution:

    "Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person..."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by reardenstone View Post
    Who owned the land originally? Was there an original deed?

    I happen to like the land use Georgism approach. We can't make more land nor can humans create it (yet).
    Humans can and have and do make and create more land. Dykes in the Netherlands created huge tracts of new land. Artificial islands off Dubai are new land created by man. For practical purposes, technology has made tons and tons and tons of previously useless, unusable, worthless land into economically valuable land, feasible to occupy or put to some use. Though this land may have technically existed before, as far as humans are concerned it may as well not have because we couldn't put it to any use. Now we can.

  4. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    To deny property rights (INCLUDING LAND) is to deny humanity any chance of peace and longstanding survival (that we can control...I.e, excluding an asteroid).
    Hong Kong has done very well with no private ownership of land for over 160 years. You are therefore objectively wrong. Try to understand why.

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    Taxes are bad, mmkay?

    How about we establish a completely voluntary society of no institutionalized coercion? I like that idea better.
    That would be good. Looters go home!



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Humans can and have and do make and create more land.
    No, that is logically impossible.
    Dykes in the Netherlands created huge tracts of new land.
    No, they merely allowed pre-existing land to be dried out. That is why the dykes were built there, and not just anywhere.
    Artificial islands off Dubai are new land created by man.
    No, that is just building up pre-existing land. And again, it was only possible because the water covering the land was not too deep.
    For practical purposes, technology has made tons and tons and tons of previously useless, unusable, worthless land into economically valuable land, feasible to occupy or put to some use.
    Yes, but that is not creation of land.
    Though this land may have technically existed before, as far as humans are concerned it may as well not have because we couldn't put it to any use. Now we can.
    The new technology enables certain more productive uses of land, but it does not create land. The point is that even though no one may have wanted to use the land before, they were at liberty to do so. The advent of new technology does not somehow justify depriving them of that liberty without just compensation.

  8. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Does to me! The nice thing about freedom is that it will allow those who do think that hedonism, nature-worship, homosexuality, etc. are feasible elements to base a successful society on will be free to buy up land and have their way of life as well. Amish Paradise, Greenwich Village (anything goes), Gay City, and Family-First Traditional Land can all exist in peace and may the most successful society win!
    You know what I thought of? Freedom will even allow our good friends the Georgists to buy up a bunch of land and then tax themselves for their crime of monopolizing the land. They can form their own little gated community where everyone must pay land tax and then that is distributed to everyone in their community or whatever their particular version of Georgist theory teaches them should be done with the money. Maybe they will even send some small checks to those of us living outside the community in the larger libertarian society in return for ripping us off by monopolizing their land. And if their ideas are as awesome as they know that they are, it will be so wildly successful eventually everyone will be following their lead. Freedom is fantastic!

  9. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    You seem to believe that land cannot be owned - these people most certainly believed in land as property.
    Most of them were aware of the problematic character of property in land, which is one factor that makes it suitable for taxation, while other, more valid forms of property are not suitable. Remember, none of them lived under an allodial land property system: landed property was always recognized to be a privilege issued by government, and was always conditional, especially on payment of taxes.

  10. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Freedom will even allow our good friends the Georgists to buy up a bunch of land
    If we had our freedom, what would be our motive for paying some parasite for what nature provided for free?
    They can form their own little gated community where everyone must pay land tax and then that is distributed to everyone in their community or whatever their particular version of Georgist theory teaches them should be done with the money... And if their ideas are as awesome as they know that they are, it will be so wildly successful eventually everyone will be following their lead. Freedom is fantastic!
    Hong Kong. Now being imitated by China. 'Nuff said.

  11. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    Taxes are bad, mmkay?

    How about we establish a completely voluntary society of no institutionalized coercion? I like that idea better.
    Now you're talkin!
    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

  12. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, that is logically impossible.
    Well yes, obviously. I mean there's only a fixed quantity of land, period, by definition. I mean, that is, if you define it a certain way. And, I mean, there's probably only one way to define it, right? I mean, land is land and it's, like, special somehow, right? Like, mystical almost. I mean, some matter is land and always will be and some matter just isn't and never can be. Whoa, I'm blowing my mind here.

    Anyway, you told me quite clearly that I can't answer your The Question, and so if I can't even do that it's obvious as all get-out that you've totally crushed and embarrassed me in debate just as you effortlessly crushed and humiliated Rothbard and so I guess I really don't understand why you're even bothering to write to an inferior such as myself and I kind of wish you would stop.

  13. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Georgism is such a backwards agrarian philosophy
    It is not agrarian. You are just makin' $#!+ up.
    (invented by a guy who was just bitter because he was never rich and landowners were as easy to blame as anyone else. The whole thing is just an elaborate excuse for his failure in life).
    That is an absurd and despicable fabrication. The idea of taxing land alone was originated by the French physiocrats Quesnay and Turgot, both of whom were wealthy, eminent and successful.

    You know you are in the presence of naked, smirking evil when those who oppose injustice are accused of envy for its beneficiaries.
    If some matter must kept sacred as the Perpetual Common Heritage of All Mankind (TM), why allow other matter to slip into the evil grasping hands of Private Interests (shudder)?
    It's very simple: some matter is as nature provided it, other matter has been made into products of labor.
    Why is a field of oats unproperty while a couch is property? Oh, one is raw and elemental, the other is manufactured.
    Wrong. Inevitably. Both are products of labor and thus rightly property.

    You are just makin' $#!+ up.
    OK, fine. What about a rock? Why can a rock be property?
    Because it can be removed from nature.
    What about new land created with big dykes, as in the Netherlands.
    That land was there all along. It was just wet.
    Why can a boat be property but not a manufactured island?
    The manufactured island IS property. Just not the land it is sitting on.

    Everything you are saying about Georgism is false and dishonest.
    What if I carved a big chunk out of the earth and launched it up into space to create a manufactured asteroid. Then it would be created with labor, like a boat or like a gold coin extracted from the Earth. Would the manufactured asteroid then be ownable?
    Yes.
    The whole thing is utterly devoid of any consistency.
    That is a fabrication on your part. It is very consistent.
    I believe in consistency.
    I have proved you do not.
    Georgism fails the consistency test.
    Flat false. You are just makin' $#!+ up about what Georgism plainly says.

  14. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Well yes, obviously. I mean there's only a fixed quantity of land, period, by definition. I mean, that is, if you define it a certain way. And, I mean, there's probably only one way to define it, right?
    "Land" has a number of different senses (it can even be used as different parts of speech), but only one relevant one: the economic one.
    I mean, land is land and it's, like, special somehow, right? Like, mystical almost. I mean, some matter is land and always will be and some matter just isn't and never can be. Whoa, I'm blowing my mind here.
    In economics, land is the whole physical universe other than human beings and the products of their labor.
    Anyway, you told me quite clearly that I can't answer your The Question, and so if I can't even do that it's obvious as all get-out that you've totally crushed and embarrassed me in debate just as you effortlessly crushed and humiliated Rothbard and so I guess I really don't understand why you're even bothering to write to an inferior such as myself and I kind of wish you would stop.
    Oh, I'm sure you do.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    No. By the reasoning I used in that quote, Crusoe could only exclude Friday from the land he was using, such as his home and garden.
    Suppose he is using the whole island for a game preserve, as the English aristocrats did their land?
    To say that a person has no right to exclude others from any land is not only to prohibit the ownership of land, but also of houses, cars, and feet.
    No, because they are not land. They were not already there, ready to use, with no help from anyone. Land was.
    If it's not a weak spot then why not just answer the question?
    Because that would lend it legitimacy it does not merit.
    If you have an answer then you could have spared yourself 4 or 5 times of saying something about how you think I'm changing the subject just by saying whatever your answer is.
    A home is a product of labor and thus rightly property. Land isn't, and thus isn't. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
    I have read about people who lived as hunters and gatherers, but only ones that believed in owning property.
    Not property in land, they didn't (unless they learned it from other societies where it was practised). You are AGAIN trying to change the subject from property in land to all property.
    What are some specific ones that didn't? Do you know of any at all?
    Of course. There are even many specific quotes to that effect:

    "What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit of the Pokanoket

    "One does not sell the land people walk on." --Crazy Horse of the Oglala Lakota

    "We do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us?" -Seattle of the Duwamish

    "My reason teaches me that land cannot be sold. The Great Spirit gave it to his children to live upon. So long as they occupy and cultivate it, they have a right to the soil. Nothing can be sold but such things as can be carried away" -- Black Hawk of the Sauk
    Which of those sources talk about how they didn't own land?
    All of them.
    Apparently not in the hypothetical you're making up. No. But so what?
    So you are wrong.
    Do squatters not use walls the way the rest of us do?
    Right: to keep weather out, not to keep people off the land.
    Do you imagine squatters saying to themselves, "Since I'm a squatter, I must not believe in owning land. Therefore, I won't lock this door."?
    The door prevents access to people and products of labor, not just the land.
    Where does this group of people you call "government" get any authority at all?
    Legitimation models are outside the scope of this discussion. Please stop trying to change the subject.
    Who sets these borders and tells some group of people that you're calling "government" that they own all the land in those borders and have a right to charge taxes to anyone else to use it?
    I didn't say they owned it or that anyone told them they owned it. Borders are established by mutual agreement or by force. Stop makin' $#!+ up.
    And how does this government's ownership of all that land not violate the anti-land ownership dictum you say you believe in?
    Why are you just makin' $#!+ up about what I plainly wrote?

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    And who are these anointed people you call the government in this question anyway?
    Why are you pretending not to know how governments are established?
    What gives them the right to charge everyone rent for what is supposedly common property?
    It is government's JOB to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the products of their labor. It cannot do that unless it recovers the publicly created value of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it. Anything else inherently subsidizes landowners at the expense of the productive.
    And how does paying this rent to them somehow work as a proxy for paying all the other people in the world whom you are excluding from your land?
    It is government that administers possession and use of land, and our government has no authority over other people in their own countries. So you don't compensate them, but they also don't compensate you. As long as countries are fairly big and diverse, it's more or less a wash. Borders are to some extent arbitrary -- think of some of the boundaries between states -- but it is just a practical reality that governments only exercise their authority within those boundaries.

  18. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    You seem to believe that land cannot be owned - these people most certainly believed in land as property.
    Really? If they believed land is no different than capital then please address the quotes I provided from Milton Friedman and Thomas Paine. I can also provide quotes supporting Henry George's ideas. from every other individual I listed.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    The fundamental presuppositions of this "rent" idea is flawed. It assumes that the government 'owns' the land, and that regular folks are just tenant serfs. If you want a logical, fair way to fund the government, make it all voluntary. Donate whatever % of income to the IRS you want, and call it a "patriotic donation".
    The government has no more right to ownership of the land than you or I. There is a difference between a 'commons' and a 'collective'.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  20. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    The government has no more right to ownership of the land than you or I. There is a difference between a 'commons' and a 'collective'.
    Bingo. Well said. You stopped short, though. Should have explained it.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

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

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

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

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

  21. #198
    n/m
    Last edited by osan; 09-16-2011 at 07:19 AM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

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

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

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

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

  22. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Why are you pretending not to know how governments are established?
    I do know how they're established. The ones that actually exist in the real world were established by one group of people conquering and subjugating another group of people. But I don't see how that set of events gives any legitimacy to the claim of those in the former group to have the right to tax those in the latter group.

    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 products of their labor.
    Maybe in some imaginary world it is. But in the real world the government's job is to maintain and increase the power the rulers have over those they rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It is government that administers possession and use of land
    So then all I have to do to attain the right to own land and rent it out to people is call myself a government?

  23. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    The door prevents access to people and products of labor, not just the land.
    Yes. But it doesn't only prevent access to people and the products of their labor. It also prevents access to certain land. Do people have a right to use locked doors to prevent others from accessing certain land or not?

    If the answer is no, then how else do they prevent them access to people and the products of their labor?



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Of course. There are even many specific quotes to that effect:

    "What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit of the Pokanoket

    "One does not sell the land people walk on." --Crazy Horse of the Oglala Lakota

    "We do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us?" -Seattle of the Duwamish

    "My reason teaches me that land cannot be sold. The Great Spirit gave it to his children to live upon. So long as they occupy and cultivate it, they have a right to the soil. Nothing can be sold but such things as can be carried away" -- Black Hawk of the Sauk

    All of them.

    So you are wrong.
    Thank you for finally providing examples.

    Before I concede that I was wrong I have two questions that still need answering about them:
    1) Did these Indian tribes have property taxes? Since you have claimed that it is necessary to have property taxes in order for people not to own land, then either they did have property taxes, or they did believe in land ownership, or else your premise about property taxes is wrong.
    2) Did these Indian tribes ever use any means to exclude people from any parcel of land? Such means would include the existence of any structures, either permanent or movable, which they understood to be any person's or family's exclusive property. Since, if they did have such things, they did, de facto, have land ownership.

  26. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post

    You are misstating the historical facts. It was not that the land was collectivized, but that PRODUCTS OF LABOR were collectivized. Try to find a willingness to know the difference.
    Yup. and it was the collectivization of the product of labor that led to starvation. They dealt with this problem by adopting a geoist system where the land was still common territory but each individual/family was able to keep the fruits of the labor. It was a big success.

    http://www.progress.org/fold65.htm
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  27. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Yes. But it doesn't only prevent access to people and the products of their labor. It also prevents access to certain land. Do people have a right to use locked doors to prevent others from accessing certain land or not?

    If the answer is no, then how else do they prevent them access to people and the products of their labor?

    These are tough questions and I think this is where local civic engagement comes in for voluntary organization. As a lone wolf on the hill you may have problems but if you surround yourself with like minded folk you can help watch each other's lots. You could also benefit from having additional shared food production labor and by helping run your own private energy grid off the main bloat grid of the city-state proper.

    I have no issue with the fenced in what you can use for real sense of property, but I have serious problems with the historic acquisition of land and misuse of the state which granted privilege and access which still casts a spectre over it today. In Iceland the original rule/agreement was that any man could claim any land that he could light fires around within one day and any woman could lead a herd animal around within one day.


    On to land rights use though. I was looking at some land in the North Georgia Mountains and the land use laws are ridiculous. No manufactured homes, no multiple home sites, covenants out the wazoo, and no other animals besides cats and dogs. This is not a community decision but a bank land holder decision.

    So I guess I can't go there and raise chickens and be self supportive. I still have to tie in to the grid and live "unfree". So there is that issue too. How can you be free if you have to observe bank dictated covenants and not do with your land what you want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else? Neighborhood decisions are one thing, bank property management which molds "subdivisions" into collectives with fascist rules is another.

    In general I think land use should be free, but there should be an "insurance" tax on businesses or dirty polluting companies that want to devalue the land and immediate environment and lower everyone else's quality of life and property.

    And finally: Should supermarkets and leased lots be able to prohibit carpoolers from parking in empty Kroger parking lots on threat of towing or booting? A small user fee perhaps, but not a ridiculous impoundment. I was thinking voluntaryist and thought it would be great for the green movement, traffic reduction, and parking woes of city dwellers if they could turn to a private shuttle service in Atlanta that had routes to a few popular destinations that have poor parking access, such as the Capitol and Georgia State University. Shopping centers have plenty of parking and they could even get a small cut. But greed, unwillingness to share and ridiculous laws would prevent this sort of mutual innovation.
    Last edited by reardenstone; 09-16-2011 at 10:17 AM.

    Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it

    By Douglas Rushkoff


    THE IRON FIST BEHIND THE INVISIBLE HAND
    Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege

    by Kevin A. Carson
    http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

    New Heroes: Social Entrepreneurship - Voluntary Progressive Services
    http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/whatis/

  28. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Humans can and have and do make and create more land. Dykes in the Netherlands created huge tracts of new land. Artificial islands off Dubai are new land created by man. For practical purposes, technology has made tons and tons and tons of previously useless, unusable, worthless land into economically valuable land, feasible to occupy or put to some use. Though this land may have technically existed before, as far as humans are concerned it may as well not have because we couldn't put it to any use. Now we can.
    Land CANNOT be created. Those dykes and artificial islands are merely improvements upon land just like a house.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  29. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by reardenstone View Post
    I have no issue with the fenced in what you can use for real sense of property, but I have serious problems with the historic acquisition of land and misuse of the state which granted privilege and access which still casts a spectre over it today.
    I agree. To me the distinction between recognizing certain problems with land ownership, on the one hand, and denying any right of anyone ever to exclude anyone else from any piece of land, on the other hand, is pretty important.

  30. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Thank you for finally providing examples.

    Before I concede that I was wrong I have two questions that still need answering about them:
    1) Did these Indian tribes have property taxes? Since you have claimed that it is necessary to have property taxes in order for people not to own land, then either they did have property taxes, or they did believe in land ownership, or else your premise about property taxes is wrong.
    2) Did these Indian tribes ever use any means to exclude people from any parcel of land? Such means would include the existence of any structures, either permanent or movable, which they understood to be any person's or family's exclusive property. Since, if they did have such things, they did, de facto, have land ownership.


    Part of my field of study was the political economy of the Southeastern Indians, so you will have to take my imperfect word on it and wait for references and further reading.


    The Indian societies were not "perfect" though they used land well. Their societies went through several transitions form extended family kin group band, to free tribes, then to consolidated city-states, then post DeSoto demographic collapse, back to free tribes, so there is no perfect "noble savage" era in the southeast so to speak, but that does not invalidate their claim and right to the land. When they were in the Mississippian phase of paramount chiefdom rule, "tributes" were expected from people and the petty under-chiefdoms, but in general land was shared and was for the most part land use and production relationships could be compared to European feudalism then in later period more like that of the "free-state" Iceland. After this period and into the historic post contact period, tribes utilize a mixed form or property. The people had their own small home plots and small private gardens but they also shared common land to augment the common food supply. Strength in sustainable numbers helped them mutually survive and protect their way of life from future paramount rule. Hunting land was shared but for the most part tribes remained apart and were territorial.

    To answer your questions, the Southeastern Indians had a mixed approach to "ownership" of small plots, and personal belongings, yet still shared the land proper. They didn't exclude members of their own tribe, but recognized constriction zones where unofficial borders existed between "territories".

    We can't recreate that tribal territorialism but what we can do is borrow from the example of small private use and local group shared resources.


    The larger issue I see coming out of the bigger framework of materialism is the issue of land ownership. Theft, trickery, usury and violence was used to wrest this land from the people that were pre-existing. We cannot be vulgar about "ownership" rights now unless we want to embrace the violence and long long history of our kind that got us here. We cannot pay for the sins of our fathers, but we can "check" how we think about legacy and reform how we think about using land. Private ownership is fine in the truly useful subsistence sense, but we have the opportunity to build the notion of the co-op and base land tax based on the notion that a dirty plant takes land away from everyone else and devalues its use. So the plant then is paying everyone else for the right to use it and not just paying some bank financed goon who happened to know the law of usury and state privilege to strong arm everyone off the land.

    To make things simpler, large corporations campuses can be charged a land tax which then gets paid out not to the state but to the local organization of people. Land taxes should also be considered for individuals who buy a large amount (20+ acres?) of land and never add use to it while excluding all others.

    On the other hand, if your plot just has room for a house and a garden and some power generating and a family size coop of hens, you get off property tax free.


    We may not have the answers but the discussion is important because it challenges us to think about the history of land and why it is not a fair comparison for a commodity that someone makes, with possible exceptions to those who truly rescue barren zones and create something fertile.

    Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it

    By Douglas Rushkoff


    THE IRON FIST BEHIND THE INVISIBLE HAND
    Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege

    by Kevin A. Carson
    http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

    New Heroes: Social Entrepreneurship - Voluntary Progressive Services
    http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/whatis/

  31. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Bingo. Well said. You stopped short, though. Should have explained it.
    Common property is not under the control of the government. An example of common property is an open park. Anyone can use it. Anyone can access it. However, governments tend to have so many restrictions on parks that they become collective property. Unfortunately, socialists have perverted the term "commons" to make it practically synonymous with "collective"
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  32. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That's just objectively false.

    That is objectively false. A land value tax is unaffected by improvements.

    Well maintained neighborhoods do tend to have higher land values, but that is a result of what the whole neighborhood does, not just one homeowner.

    Again, that is objectively false. You are talking about the current property tax, not a land value tax.

    Then you know that land is much easier to value than improvements, and improvements do not affect land value. If the house burns down, the land value stays the same.

    No, of course you haven't. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

    Look what Proposition 13 has done to California. Are Texans going to be as stupid as Californians?
    None of what I said is false. In Texas we value land AND improvements and combine the two for a total property value. For every 100 dollars of property value, you pay more of your districts' tax rate. Land itself is indeed easier to tax through mass appraisal. However you are boned if you begin to build on it. Then you will be penalized with roll back tax for 5 years for the area you approved on.

    Every three years we are required to reappraise all property values in the county we work in. If you have any new additions then we need to measure the square footage and add that to the property value.

    Are you on something? Or is this just an issue of me being an appraiser for a different state than you?
    Last edited by Athan; 09-16-2011 at 11:13 AM.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    You have clearly not read anything on what the land value tax is. If you did you would know that adding improvements to the land you occupy would not increase the tax you have to pay.
    That is incorrect when it comes to the Texas Property Tax Code. Build a second story or additions and you will be seeing Appraisers with tape ready to measure and increase your property value. If you don't want your taxes to go up, your community will need to bring down tax rates in the whole district.

  35. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    That is incorrect when it comes to the Texas Property Tax Code. Build a second story or additions and you will be seeing Appraisers with tape ready to measure and increase your property value. If you don't want your taxes to go up, your community will need to bring down tax rates in the whole district.
    Does the Texas Property Tax Code claim that it's a land value tax? If not, then aren't you talking about something different?

Page 7 of 68 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... 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. 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
  •