Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.

In our modern economy regarding investment capital and intellectual property, the value of land is only a minor factor in the creation of wealth in the economy. For instance, a jewelry store could generate the same amount of wealth (if not more) than a grocery store, even though the grocery store is larger. The LVT also essentially shifts the tax burden entirely away from individuals and onto businesses. Granted, this is somewhat of a good thing, except I'm skeptical because of how extreme it is. Those who would be hit the hardest by the LVT would be any business which currently owns large plots of land (farmers) or any business which needs to regularly procure land (urban businesses). So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.

Finally, the correlation between the LVT and economic prosperity does not demonstrate that the LVT caused economic prosperity, but rather, it could just as well be the other way around: that economically prosperous nations have enough wealth to be able to toy around with inefficient taxation. And hence, economically prosperous nations are more likely to have welfare systems. Of course, no one could claim that welfare makes nations economically prosperous.

A better demonstration of this principle is the fact that Japan has one of the richest economies in the world, despite merely being a series of small islands.

[Iriemon]

Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble).

Why?

[Nathyn]

Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble).

Why?
Well, we aren't in a philosophical bubble. By that, I mean that all of our property rights rely upon historical theft and I'm still sort of undecided on Rawls' claim of an "original position," we can simply assume.

However, assuming that humanity began totally equal, without any inherent advantages over one another other than their own specific natures and government came to be created, absolute property rights could only be retained if the government taxed what is not labored for, such as land, natural resources, and corporate profits. In such a philosophical bubble, there's no reason to believe that property rights should be forsaken in favor of any other rights anymore than vice-versa. And so, the LVT (as well as possibly a tax on investment income) would be the only justifiable taxes, ethically, as they are the only means of taxation which tax that which is not truly owned. And so, to think in such black-and-white terms as "Taxation is theft," in such an environment, the LVT would be rectifying theft rather than committing it.

[Iriemon]

Nathyn wrote: Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble).

Why?
Well, we aren't in a philosophical bubble. By that, I mean that all of our property rights rely upon historical theft and I'm still sort of undecided on Rawls' claim of an "original position," we can simply assume.

However, assuming that humanity began totally equal, without any inherent advantages over one another other than their own specific natures and government came to be created, absolute property rights could only be retained if the government taxed what is not labored for, such as land, natural resources, and corporate profits. In such a philosophical bubble, there's no reason to believe that property rights should be forsaken in favor of any other rights anymore than vice-versa. And so, the LVT (as well as possibly a tax on investment income) would be the only justifiable taxes, ethically, as they are the only means of taxation which tax that which is not truly owned. And so, to think in such black-and-white terms as "Taxation is theft," in such an environment, the LVT would be rectifying theft rather than committing it.

If the only basis for supporting the LVT is this "philosiphical bubble", I'll respectfully decline to consider it because I disagree with the premise of the philosphical bubble.

[Nathyn]

Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble).

Why?
Well, we aren't in a philosophical bubble. By that, I mean that all of our property rights rely upon historical theft and I'm still sort of undecided on Rawls' claim of an "original position," we can simply assume.

However, assuming that humanity began totally equal, without any inherent advantages over one another other than their own specific natures and government came to be created, absolute property rights could only be retained if the government taxed what is not labored for, such as land, natural resources, and corporate profits. In such a philosophical bubble, there's no reason to believe that property rights should be forsaken in favor of any other rights anymore than vice-versa. And so, the LVT (as well as possibly a tax on investment income) would be the only justifiable taxes, ethically, as they are the only means of taxation which tax that which is not truly owned. And so, to think in such black-and-white terms as "Taxation is theft," in such an environment, the LVT would be rectifying theft rather than committing it.

If the only basis for supporting the LVT is this "philosiphical bubble", I'll respectfully decline to consider it because I disagree with the premise of the philosphical bubble.
Did you read my original post? I don't support the LVT. I'm just explaining (partially) why some people do support it. Like Libertarians, they don't recognize the fact that we aren't in a philosophical bubble and so, they think that there's actually some sort of logical means of establishing absolute property rights based upon 100-year-old notions of the original state of man.

In the case of RueTheDay, though, I think it's something different, because he describes property rights as being essentially just created by the government out of thin air.

[Iriemon]

Nathyn wrote: Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble).

Why?
Well, we aren't in a philosophical bubble. By that, I mean that all of our property rights rely upon historical theft and I'm still sort of undecided on Rawls' claim of an "original position," we can simply assume.

However, assuming that humanity began totally equal, without any inherent advantages over one another other than their own specific natures and government came to be created, absolute property rights could only be retained if the government taxed what is not labored for, such as land, natural resources, and corporate profits. In such a philosophical bubble, there's no reason to believe that property rights should be forsaken in favor of any other rights anymore than vice-versa. And so, the LVT (as well as possibly a tax on investment income) would be the only justifiable taxes, ethically, as they are the only means of taxation which tax that which is not truly owned. And so, to think in such black-and-white terms as "Taxation is theft," in such an environment, the LVT would be rectifying theft rather than committing it.

If the only basis for supporting the LVT is this "philosiphical bubble", I'll respectfully decline to consider it because I disagree with the premise of the philosphical bubble.
Did you read my original post? I don't support the LVT. I'm just explaining (partially) why some people do support it. Like Libertarians, they don't recognize the fact that we aren't in a philosophical bubble and so, they think that there's actually some sort of logical means of establishing absolute property rights based upon 100-year-old notions of the original state of man.

In the case of RueTheDay, though, I think it's something different, because he describes property rights as being essentially just created by the government out of thin air.

I had thought you were supporting it tho perhaps in a different type or system than others had proposed. Usually when someone starts a thread they are a proponent of the system. My apologies

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.

Quote: In our modern economy regarding investment capital and intellectual property, the value of land is only a minor factor in the creation of wealth in the economy. For instance, a jewelry store could generate the same amount of wealth (if not more) than a grocery store, even though the grocery store is larger.
The grocery store is larger, but that's not the point when it comes to land value: the point is not the size of the land, or in modern times, even the quality of the land, but as Realtors say "location, location, location." It's the location of the land -generally in areas where a large population can readily access -that gives the land value. Whether you wish to open a grocery store or a jewelry store, you want to open it downtown, or by the mall, or wherever you think the most people will shop; opening it in the middle of nowhere would be pointless, because you're dependent on there being customers.

Because of this, those who hold land in these areas are able to extract all the value that that specific area has over land in the middle of nowhere in the form of rent. Basically, land in wealthy, highly populated areas has a greater value simply due to the large population and the high degree potential of production based on the existing wealth; private land ownership allows individuals to extract this value, allowing them to acquire for themselves all gains realized by society in productive potential, regardless of whether this gain is caused by larger population or greater accumulated wealth.

Quote: The LVT also essentially shifts the tax burden entirely away from individuals and onto businesses.
Well, yes and no: it does shift the burden off of individuals, but it adds no burden to business: businesses already pay rent, the LVT simply changes the party they pay it to from some individual to society.

Quote: Granted, this is somewhat of a good thing, except I'm skeptical because of how extreme it is. Those who would be hit the hardest by the LVT would be any business which currently owns large plots of land (farmers) or any business which needs to regularly procure land (urban businesses). So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.
You're mistaking a land value tax for a simple land tax. A land value tax does not tax based in acreage or some other such measure, but rental value of land. Farmers already pay land rent, now they'll be paying the government instead of the bank.

Quote: Finally, the correlation between the LVT and economic prosperity does not demonstrate that the LVT caused economic prosperity, but rather, it could just as well be the other way around: that economically prosperous nations have enough wealth to be able to toy around with inefficient taxation. And hence, economically prosperous nations are more likely to have welfare systems. Of course, no one could claim that welfare makes nations economically prosperous.
I have no useful reply to this, as it is to my understanding that there are no nations who employ a full land value tax as an exclusive means of taxation.

Quote: A better demonstration of this principle is the fact that Japan has one of the richest economies in the world, despite merely being a series of small islands.
And Britain! Wealth is determined by several factors, in my mind:

1. the number of laborers
2. accumulated capital, which gives greater productive potential to existing labor
3. degree to which trade can operate freely, which allows the market to economize efficiently

The LVT is good because it allows for truly free trade by giving each an equal opportunity to use land, and ending current restrictions on trade (be they direct taxes, such as income tax, or indirect taxes such as tariffs).

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.

Then maybe after the Govt gets around to slashing its expenditures it will be worth considering this as a tax system.

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.

Then maybe after the Govt gets around to slashing its expenditures it will be worth considering this as a tax system.
Or we could wait around for Michael Jackson to act like a normal human being. :roll:

The LVT needs to be instituted; if extra revenue is absolutely necessary, it should be collected in the form of a sales tax, IMO.

[Nathyn]

Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.
You need to define "wealth distribution scheme." Because the LVT (as you seem to imply) would provide for the poor, but it would be justified. If a person believes ANOTHER means of providing for the poor is justified, why is THAT a "wealth distribution scheme," but the LVT isn't? The government must inherently decide what is the appropriate distribution of wealth, whether X person has legitimate right to possess a certain object because it is the government that enforces it. And so, opposing anti-trust law and support traditional property rights is just as much of a "wealth distribution scheme," as progressive taxation. Furthermore, I think that a negative income tax would work far better than the LVT.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: In our modern economy regarding investment capital and intellectual property, the value of land is only a minor factor in the creation of wealth in the economy. For instance, a jewelry store could generate the same amount of wealth (if not more) than a grocery store, even though the grocery store is larger.
The grocery store is larger, but that's not the point when it comes to land value: the point is not the size of the land, or in modern times, even the quality of the land, but as Realtors say "location, location, location." It's the location of the land -generally in areas where a large population can readily access -that gives the land value. Whether you wish to open a grocery store or a jewelry store, you want to open it downtown, or by the mall, or wherever you think the most people will shop; opening it in the middle of nowhere would be pointless, because you're dependent on there being customers.

Because of this, those who hold land in these areas are able to extract all the value that that specific area has over land in the middle of nowhere in the form of rent. Basically, land in wealthy, highly populated areas has a greater value simply due to the large population and the high degree potential of production based on the existing wealth; private land ownership allows individuals to extract this value, allowing them to acquire for themselves all gains realized by society in productive potential, regardless of whether this gain is caused by larger population or greater accumulated wealth.
Yes, you accurately described the value of land, but that wasn't my point: My point is that land isn't the sole or even the primary object which gives the economy its value.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: The LVT also essentially shifts the tax burden entirely away from individuals and onto businesses.
Well, yes and no: it does shift the burden off of individuals, but it adds no burden to business: businesses already pay rent, the LVT simply changes the party they pay it to from some individual to society.
Rent would be increased, however, assuming it's revenue-neutral. If it isn't revenue-neutral, I'm skeptical it could support the government.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Granted, this is somewhat of a good thing, except I'm skeptical because of how extreme it is. Those who would be hit the hardest by the LVT would be any business which currently owns large plots of land (farmers) or any business which needs to regularly procure land (urban businesses). So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.
You're mistaking a land value tax for a simple land tax. A land value tax does not tax based in acreage or some other such measure, but rental value of land. Farmers already pay land rent, now they'll be paying the government instead of the bank.
The two are correlated. 20 acres of land is of greater value than 10 acres of land.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Finally, the correlation between the LVT and economic prosperity does not demonstrate that the LVT caused economic prosperity, but rather, it could just as well be the other way around: that economically prosperous nations have enough wealth to be able to toy around with inefficient taxation. And hence, economically prosperous nations are more likely to have welfare systems. Of course, no one could claim that welfare makes nations economically prosperous.
I have no useful reply to this, as it is to my understanding that there are no nations who employ a full land value tax as an exclusive means of taxation.

Quote: A better demonstration of this principle is the fact that Japan has one of the richest economies in the world, despite merely being a series of small islands.
And Britain! Wealth is determined by several factors, in my mind:

1. the number of laborers
2. accumulated capital, which gives greater productive potential to existing labor
3. degree to which trade can operate freely, which allows the market to economize efficiently

The LVT is good because it allows for truly free trade by giving each an equal opportunity to use land, and ending current restrictions on trade (be they direct taxes, such as income tax, or indirect taxes such as tariffs).
A nation's wealth is determined by a whole host of factors which would be too long for me to remember off-hand, but I know there's more than that.

If you applied those three factors to existing statistics, I'm also certain you wouldn't find an exact 1 to 1 correlation.

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.
You need to define "wealth distribution scheme." Because the LVT (as you seem to imply) would provide for the poor, but it would be justified.
Basically, I define it as a taxation scheme designed to forcefully redistribute wealth, based not on justice, but on expedience. In other words, robbing the rich and giving to the poor. The LVT wouldn't provide for the poor; what the LVT would do is give the poor and the rich and everyone else equal opportunity to provide for themselves.

Quote: If a person believes ANOTHER means of providing for the poor is justified, why is THAT a "wealth distribution scheme," but the LVT isn't?
Because their schemes rarely attempt to address any injustice; rather than preventing people from being robbed, they seek to rob the robbers in order to give it back. That's a foolish scheme, and one that does nothing to correct the fundamental injustice that is to blame in the first place.

Quote: The government must inherently decide what is the appropriate distribution of wealth, whether X person has legitimate right to possess a certain object because it is the government that enforces it. And so, opposing anti-trust law and support traditional property rights is just as much of a "wealth distribution scheme," as progressive taxation.
I disagree. Progressive taxation has no means by which it can be objectively justified. Property rights do, IMO.

Quote: Furthermore, I think that a negative income tax would work far better than the LVT.
You believe, in other words, that people should be rewarded for being less productive, at a direct expense to those who are more productive.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: In our modern economy regarding investment capital and intellectual property, the value of land is only a minor factor in the creation of wealth in the economy. For instance, a jewelry store could generate the same amount of wealth (if not more) than a grocery store, even though the grocery store is larger.
The grocery store is larger, but that's not the point when it comes to land value: the point is not the size of the land, or in modern times, even the quality of the land, but as Realtors say "location, location, location." It's the location of the land -generally in areas where a large population can readily access -that gives the land value. Whether you wish to open a grocery store or a jewelry store, you want to open it downtown, or by the mall, or wherever you think the most people will shop; opening it in the middle of nowhere would be pointless, because you're dependent on there being customers.

Because of this, those who hold land in these areas are able to extract all the value that that specific area has over land in the middle of nowhere in the form of rent. Basically, land in wealthy, highly populated areas has a greater value simply due to the large population and the high degree potential of production based on the existing wealth; private land ownership allows individuals to extract this value, allowing them to acquire for themselves all gains realized by society in productive potential, regardless of whether this gain is caused by larger population or greater accumulated wealth.
Yes, you accurately described the value of land, but that wasn't my point: My point is that land isn't the sole or even the primary object which gives the economy its value.
More than that: the land itself gives the economy no value whatever! The problem is not that land gives the economy a large portion of it's value, and that certain individuals are collecting that value; the problem is that all value is created by the individuals, and the private ownership (and thus, monopolization) of land allows certain individuals to extract a sizable portion of that value, even though they had no hand in creating it.

He who owns the land owns all that is produced upon the land.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: The LVT also essentially shifts the tax burden entirely away from individuals and onto businesses.
Well, yes and no: it does shift the burden off of individuals, but it adds no burden to business: businesses already pay rent, the LVT simply changes the party they pay it to from some individual to society.
Rent would be increased, however, assuming it's revenue-neutral. If it isn't revenue-neutral, I'm skeptical it could support the government.
Rent can't be increased; it is determined by the market. It could easily support our government, if our government wasn't the wealth-redistribution tool it currently is (and I'm not merely talking redistribution from the rich to the poor, but also from the general population to special interests in the form of corporate welfare, tariffs, the military-industrial complex, and the like).

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Granted, this is somewhat of a good thing, except I'm skeptical because of how extreme it is. Those who would be hit the hardest by the LVT would be any business which currently owns large plots of land (farmers) or any business which needs to regularly procure land (urban businesses). So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.
You're mistaking a land value tax for a simple land tax. A land value tax does not tax based in acreage or some other such measure, but rental value of land. Farmers already pay land rent, now they'll be paying the government instead of the bank.
The two are correlated. 20 acres of land is of greater value than 10 acres of land.
Not necessarily; 10 acres of land down the street from here is worth much less than a single acre 45 minutes northwest of here in the loop of Chicago.

Land value is determined by its relative productive potential. Farmers won't be hurt especially because they have large plots of land because, relatively, the value of that land is much less than much smaller plots in the city.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Finally, the correlation between the LVT and economic prosperity does not demonstrate that the LVT caused economic prosperity, but rather, it could just as well be the other way around: that economically prosperous nations have enough wealth to be able to toy around with inefficient taxation. And hence, economically prosperous nations are more likely to have welfare systems. Of course, no one could claim that welfare makes nations economically prosperous.
I have no useful reply to this, as it is to my understanding that there are no nations who employ a full land value tax as an exclusive means of taxation.

Quote: A better demonstration of this principle is the fact that Japan has one of the richest economies in the world, despite merely being a series of small islands.
And Britain! Wealth is determined by several factors, in my mind:

1. the number of laborers
2. accumulated capital, which gives greater productive potential to existing labor
3. degree to which trade can operate freely, which allows the market to economize efficiently

The LVT is good because it allows for truly free trade by giving each an equal opportunity to use land, and ending current restrictions on trade (be they direct taxes, such as income tax, or indirect taxes such as tariffs).
A nation's wealth is determined by a whole host of factors which would be too long for me to remember off-hand, but I know there's more than that.
I think that "whole host of factors" would all ultimately fall into one of the three I listed. You could say that Mexico suffers from a high level of corruption, and you'd be right: but that corruption falls under #3 above, as it is a limiting factor in free trade (theft is incompatible with free trade).

Quote: If you applied those three factors to existing statistics, I'm also certain you wouldn't find an exact 1 to 1 correlation.
Not sure what you mean here.

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.

Then maybe after the Govt gets around to slashing its expenditures it will be worth considering this as a tax system.
Or we could wait around for Michael Jackson to act like a normal human being. :roll:

The LVT needs to be instituted; if extra revenue is absolutely necessary, it should be collected in the form of a sales tax, IMO.

Why does the LVT need to be instituted? What is the benefit of taxing this particular asset as opposed to income or expenditure?

Is there somewhere I can see a general outline of what is being proposed? From what I can gather, you are proposing a tax based on the "value" of land -- isn't this already done at least to an extent because of tax on rent which is income?

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I think that the LVT is the only philosophically justifiable tax (assuming we were in a kind of philosophical bubble). However, I don't think it would account for enough revenue and I argued with Geolibertarian on this extensively.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "enough" revenue. I'd agree that the LVT wouldn't likely bring in the 2 trillion the USG currently collects in revenue, but I believe much of what that revenue is collected for (read: wealth redistribution schemes) would no longer be necessary under the LVT.

Then maybe after the Govt gets around to slashing its expenditures it will be worth considering this as a tax system.
Or we could wait around for Michael Jackson to act like a normal human being. :roll:

The LVT needs to be instituted; if extra revenue is absolutely necessary, it should be collected in the form of a sales tax, IMO.

Why does the LVT need to be instituted? What is the benefit of taxing this particular asset as opposed to income or expenditure?
To end the monopoly of land, and the imbalance of trade that results from it, mainly. Secondly, to give back to the community that which the community produced.

Quote: Is there somewhere I can see a general outline of what is being proposed? From what I can gather, you are proposing a tax based on the "value" of land -- isn't this already done at least to an extent because of tax on rent which is income?
I guess it depends on how general you're talking. This page makes a good analogy, with the separating of apples and oranges, rather than some arbitrary division thereof. I'd recommend Progress and Poverty, but that's not very general. :P

But, as to your second part, yes, land rent is somewhat taxed in some cases; the problem is, however, that it is not taxed exclusively, nor is it taxed at a great enough rate to end speculation. Normally in the states, land and the property on the land are taxed the same, which does little to help the problem.

If you're willing to commit 20 minutes or so, read this; it is a chapter from George's Protection or Free Trade. It is mainly a discussion on socialism's failings, but he outlines the purpose of the LVT in the process, and explains why the totally free trade is the best system, and why LVT is required for free trade.

[RueTheDay]

I put a lot of thought and effort into all of the posts I made before the server crashed and I have neither the time nor the desire to recreate that.

Since this is the economics forum (as opposed to the philosophy forum) I will summarize the economic aspects of why I believe the LVT is the best tax:

1. The value of land is primarily due to externalities - the actions of the surrounding community - businesses, and individuals, rather than the actions of the landowner. Thus, the community is essentially recouping what it created by taxing rent.

2. The supply of land is perfectly inelastic. They ain't making any more of it. When you tax labor, people work less; when you tax capital, they invest less; when you tax trade, they trade less. Anytime you tax something that people create, you get less of it. When you tax land, you don't get less land, because the supply is fixed. Thus, the LVT is the only tax with no deadweight loss.

3. By taxing rent, you cause the land to fall into the hands of those who can use it most productively, because they will be the ones able to pay the most tax. The LVT boosts economic efficiency.

[RueTheDay]

Nathyn wrote: In the case of RueTheDay, though, I think it's something different, because he describes property rights as being essentially just created by the government out of thin air.

That's a blatant misrepresentation of my views. Property rights are a creation of society and represent a societal relationship. They would not exist on the scale that they exist today without government enforcement, though, that is true.

[Brooklyn]

Quote: So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.

From what I've read, it would seem to have the opposite effect in regards to urban development. I try to read as much as I can on urban development, smart growth, urban sprawl, and the effects of these things. Anyway I think the LVT, in conjunction with better zoning laws can help many problems that face our urban areas. Though, as of this moment, I can't say I support it 100%.

Excerpt of LVT Explained by James H. Kunstler:

"Our system of property taxes punishes anyone who puts up a decent building made of durable materials. It rewards those who let existing buildings go to hell. It favors speculators who sit on vacant or underutilized land in the hearts of our cities and towns. In doing so it creates an artificial scarcity of land on the free market, which drives up the price of land in general, and encourages ever more scattered development, i.e., suburban sprawl. In tandem with zoning, the taxing of buildings rather than land itself promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land. It is one of the biggest impediments to the free market creation of affordable housing. As a consequence of all these things it is a drag on economic productivity and employment. "

The whole article is here -----> http://urbantools.org/lvt-explained/lvt-by-james-kunstler-1/

[Free Thinkr]

Brooklyn wrote: Quote: So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.

From what I've read, it would seem to have the opposite effect in regards to urban development. I try to read as much as I can on urban development, smart growth, urban sprawl, and the effects of these things. Anyway I think the LVT, in conjunction with better zoning laws can help many problems that face our urban areas. Though, as of this moment, I can't say I support it 100%.

Excerpt of LVT Explained by James H. Kunstler:

"Our system of property taxes punishes anyone who puts up a decent building made of durable materials. It rewards those who let existing buildings go to hell. It favors speculators who sit on vacant or underutilized land in the hearts of our cities and towns. In doing so it creates an artificial scarcity of land on the free market, which drives up the price of land in general, and encourages ever more scattered development, i.e., suburban sprawl. In tandem with zoning, the taxing of buildings rather than land itself promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land. It is one of the biggest impediments to the free market creation of affordable housing. As a consequence of all these things it is a drag on economic productivity and employment. "

The whole article is here -----> http://urbantools.org/lvt-explained/lvt-by-james-kunstler-1/
That quote summarizes it well. Land of high productive value is withheld from the market, which has two separate negative effects, in that it stifles growth, and raises rent, diverting a greater proportion of all production to landowners. The LVT obliges those who use productive land to compensate society for the right to prevent them from making use of that land themselves. Individuals pay the difference in the value of the land they monopolize over the that of land of which no one is in demand. With the LVT, the most productive land would never be withheld from the market, which would result in all of the most productive land being used, which in turn would lead to more employment, and thus, higher wages.

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Brooklyn wrote: Quote: So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.

From what I've read, it would seem to have the opposite effect in regards to urban development. I try to read as much as I can on urban development, smart growth, urban sprawl, and the effects of these things. Anyway I think the LVT, in conjunction with better zoning laws can help many problems that face our urban areas. Though, as of this moment, I can't say I support it 100%.

Excerpt of LVT Explained by James H. Kunstler:

"Our system of property taxes punishes anyone who puts up a decent building made of durable materials. It rewards those who let existing buildings go to hell. It favors speculators who sit on vacant or underutilized land in the hearts of our cities and towns. In doing so it creates an artificial scarcity of land on the free market, which drives up the price of land in general, and encourages ever more scattered development, i.e., suburban sprawl. In tandem with zoning, the taxing of buildings rather than land itself promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land. It is one of the biggest impediments to the free market creation of affordable housing. As a consequence of all these things it is a drag on economic productivity and employment. "

The whole article is here -----> http://urbantools.org/lvt-explained/lvt-by-james-kunstler-1/
That quote summarizes it well. Land of high productive value is withheld from the market, which has two separate negative effects, in that it stifles growth, and raises rent, diverting a greater proportion of all production to landowners. The LVT obliges those who use productive land to compensate society for the right to prevent them from making use of that land themselves. Individuals pay the difference in the value of the land they monopolize over the that of land of which no one is in demand. With the LVT, the most productive land would never be withheld from the market, which would result in all of the most productive land being used, which in turn would lead to more employment, and thus, higher wages.

Hmmm. Those contentions don't seem to hold water against simple observation. If the current tax system "favored promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land" it sure doesn't appear that way looking at downtown Miami, where I see lots of high rise buildings and few blocks dominated by fast food resturaunts and parking lots. There are some resturants and parking areas, but without them it seem to me to make it a little impractical for people to work downtown.

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Brooklyn wrote: Quote: So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.

From what I've read, it would seem to have the opposite effect in regards to urban development. I try to read as much as I can on urban development, smart growth, urban sprawl, and the effects of these things. Anyway I think the LVT, in conjunction with better zoning laws can help many problems that face our urban areas. Though, as of this moment, I can't say I support it 100%.

Excerpt of LVT Explained by James H. Kunstler:

"Our system of property taxes punishes anyone who puts up a decent building made of durable materials. It rewards those who let existing buildings go to hell. It favors speculators who sit on vacant or underutilized land in the hearts of our cities and towns. In doing so it creates an artificial scarcity of land on the free market, which drives up the price of land in general, and encourages ever more scattered development, i.e., suburban sprawl. In tandem with zoning, the taxing of buildings rather than land itself promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land. It is one of the biggest impediments to the free market creation of affordable housing. As a consequence of all these things it is a drag on economic productivity and employment. "

The whole article is here -----> http://urbantools.org/lvt-explained/lvt-by-james-kunstler-1/
That quote summarizes it well. Land of high productive value is withheld from the market, which has two separate negative effects, in that it stifles growth, and raises rent, diverting a greater proportion of all production to landowners. The LVT obliges those who use productive land to compensate society for the right to prevent them from making use of that land themselves. Individuals pay the difference in the value of the land they monopolize over the that of land of which no one is in demand. With the LVT, the most productive land would never be withheld from the market, which would result in all of the most productive land being used, which in turn would lead to more employment, and thus, higher wages.

Hmmm. Those contentions don't seem to hold water against simple observation. If the current tax system "favored promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land" it sure doesn't appear that way looking at downtown Miami, where I see lots of high rise buildings and few blocks dominated by fast food resturaunts and parking lots. There are some resturants and parking areas, but without them it seem to me to make it a little impractical for people to work downtown.
We're in a boom cycle, particularly in Miami. People who have been holding land for higher rent have deemed it a good time to extract the rent in the form of a high sale price. But nonetheless, it's an easily observable phenomenon where land in the city is held unproductively or underproductively. This link shows a few pictures of this sort of thing; having parking lots (not garages, lots) next to skyscrapers or buildings that primarily function as billboards, and even a picture of 52 acres of land in West Manhattan that Trump himself held empty until a time where he felt he could extract greater rent (the link also explains the role of rent in the boom/bust cycle that plagues modern economies).

In short, the problems borne out of rent are rarely noticed during the boom part of the cycle, because that is when the economy is strong enough (and therefore the demand of rent is great enough), to command the high rents for which landholders are holding out. It's when the economy is not strong that landholders are most prone to hold their land from production, as they believe, correctly, that they will not be able to extract much rent from the land under such conditions.

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Brooklyn wrote: Quote: So, this would stifle the growth of agriculture and urban development.

From what I've read, it would seem to have the opposite effect in regards to urban development. I try to read as much as I can on urban development, smart growth, urban sprawl, and the effects of these things. Anyway I think the LVT, in conjunction with better zoning laws can help many problems that face our urban areas. Though, as of this moment, I can't say I support it 100%.

Excerpt of LVT Explained by James H. Kunstler:

"Our system of property taxes punishes anyone who puts up a decent building made of durable materials. It rewards those who let existing buildings go to hell. It favors speculators who sit on vacant or underutilized land in the hearts of our cities and towns. In doing so it creates an artificial scarcity of land on the free market, which drives up the price of land in general, and encourages ever more scattered development, i.e., suburban sprawl. In tandem with zoning, the taxing of buildings rather than land itself promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land. It is one of the biggest impediments to the free market creation of affordable housing. As a consequence of all these things it is a drag on economic productivity and employment. "

The whole article is here -----> http://urbantools.org/lvt-explained/lvt-by-james-kunstler-1/
That quote summarizes it well. Land of high productive value is withheld from the market, which has two separate negative effects, in that it stifles growth, and raises rent, diverting a greater proportion of all production to landowners. The LVT obliges those who use productive land to compensate society for the right to prevent them from making use of that land themselves. Individuals pay the difference in the value of the land they monopolize over the that of land of which no one is in demand. With the LVT, the most productive land would never be withheld from the market, which would result in all of the most productive land being used, which in turn would lead to more employment, and thus, higher wages.

Hmmm. Those contentions don't seem to hold water against simple observation. If the current tax system "favored promotes such wasteful practices as putting up cheap one-story burger joints in huge parking lots on prime city land" it sure doesn't appear that way looking at downtown Miami, where I see lots of high rise buildings and few blocks dominated by fast food resturaunts and parking lots. There are some resturants and parking areas, but without them it seem to me to make it a little impractical for people to work downtown.
We're in a boom cycle, particularly in Miami. People who have been holding land for higher rent have deemed it a good time to extract the rent in the form of a high sale price. But nonetheless, it's an easily observable phenomenon where land in the city is held unproductively or underproductively. This link shows a few pictures of this sort of thing; having parking lots (not garages, lots) next to skyscrapers or buildings that primarily function as billboards, and even a picture of 52 acres of land in West Manhattan that Trump himself held empty until a time where he felt he could extract greater rent (the link also explains the role of rent in the boom/bust cycle that plagues modern economies).

In short, the problems borne out of rent are rarely noticed during the boom part of the cycle, because that is when the economy is strong enough (and therefore the demand of rent is great enough), to command the high rents for which landholders are holding out. It's when the economy is not strong that landholders are most prone to hold their land from production, as they believe, correctly, that they will not be able to extract much rent from the land under such conditions.

That makes some sense. Without a property tax, there is no incentive to do anything productive with the asset because there are no holding costs.