Political Crossfire Forums

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Ahh, so it takes this subjective meaning of "rarity" to decide what will be taxed?
It's not really subjective, as it's easily measured objectively: value. The value of naturally-occurring materials is a result of their rarity.

I have five rocks and nobody wants them, is that rare?
No.

Quote: I have 100 rocks and it has become a status symbol to wear rocks and 200 people want my rocks, is that rare?
Yes.

Quote: I say it is subjective because while supply is not elastic, demand is and depends on the wants and needs of society.
Whether something is in sufficient demand to have value, and to what extent it has value, is not subjective, even though the individual evaluations may be.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Because you don't use it in the same sense. When I use a piece of iron ore, I transform it into something totally different; say a hammer or a car. When I use a piece of land, it's not so much the matter itself that I'm using, but the location. I'm not changing the location in any way, and the location is generally the source of value.

Exactly, so if I take iron ore and make a hammer than I have taken away that persons ability to mine and make something he wants out of that ore. But with land, I take it and once I wish to sell it everyone has the opportunity to buy that land.

So wouldn't it be a greater injustice to society that I have taken that ore and made it to where noone else could ever use it?
What about the general gain in value land experiences due to population increases? This is the problem. Your iron ore is not likely to increase greatly in value, but land will. Your iron ore is not a requirement of life for all humans, but land is.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claim. The only way a purchase of land can occur is by someone originally claiming the land.

Agreed but I would add that they not only claimed that land but also was able to keep that land.
Why? Obviously, the fact that they have the land demonstrates that they were able to keep it; otherwise they wouldn't have the land.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Yeah. And? Perhaps someone would rather have the trees you cleared. There's no guarantee your labor will result in value; cue the oft-cited digging holes in the ground example.

Exactly, which is why I don't like others determining how much my land is worth.

Under the current scenario, I own a piece of land. I put a house there and now someone wants it.

The offer me double what I paid for it, I then will be able to decide if that is worth what I put into it.

Under the LVT, if I think it is worth double it doesn't matter after five years a company would just price it out of what I could afford and someone else will compensate me for a "fair" amount. Once again decided by who? Appraisers that just see wood and mortar? Great :roll:
Oh, those mischeivous companies always pricing people out of their homes! That happens so frequently too.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: And I thought the market decided what the land is worth? The natural state would never change, so shouldn't the tax always stay the same?
Really? So; if a field in the middle of Manhattan had somehow been left in its natural state, you're claiming that the value wouldn't have changed between the time Manhattan was settled and now? I don't think so.

Oh, I agree the value has changed but why did you then state this:

Quote: Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state.
The example I gave you is of land in its natural state. A field, uchanged. In Manhattan. The land value has nothing to do with improvements to land, and everything to do with its location, and the state of the society around it.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Find me this magical pair of shears that lasts forever. Most shears are lucky to last 50 years. They, like you and me, will return to the earth soon enough.

Find me a person that will hold onto land forever.
He can pass it on to his children, can't he?

Quote: If I take wood and cut it down, how long will it take for that matter to be a tree again?

If I take land and chop all the trees down, how long will it take to grow all those trees back after I give up my deed to the land?

In both instances the value of the item is gone from society for only a while and after a person is done with it all others in society have the right to try and purchase it.
Sure, but in both cases you denied society a certain amount of value for a certain period of time.

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Morality is subjective
Hence my asking you what you believed was right. Is someone that kills someone else and takes his land the rightful owner? I'm asking you a moral question.

Morally, it is wrong but the real question is why?
It violates the golden rule. I wouldn't want you to kill my family and take my house, therefore it is wrong for me to do it to you.

If I gave you $100 would I be morally justified by expecting $100 later in life? If I hated my sisters and want them to be hung would I then be able to hang your sisters?
Are you really unfamiliar with the golden rule?

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Because society has defined it as wrong. It is not immoral to own land becuase society has yet to define it as such.

So, if you lived in Third Reich Germany it wouldn't be immoral to gas Jews, blacks, gays, or Gypsies? Again, I point to the fact that law doesn't always align with morality.

But didn't you just agree with me that morals are subjective?
If morality is subjective, it can't be defined by society, by definition. You seem to be arguing for relative morality, which I surely do not agree with. Are you a moral relativist? Whether you're explicitly aware of it or not, that's what you're arguing for.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: And I am telling you that what one person feels as an injustice is irrelevant until he has convinced society that there was an injustice.
I know what you're telling me. What you seem unable to grasp is that it's not an argument at all. Slavery was always wrong, for all of human history; whether it was one person, no people, or a million people that recognized the fact that it was wrong, it was always wrong. Pretending that that fact was irrelevant before slavery was outlawed is ridiculous; it was a horrible injustice that was very much relevant, and the fight to outlaw it was righteous.

1900 Me: "It's wrong that we don't allow women to vote."
1900 You: "It's not wrong unless society deems it to be!"
1900 Me: "Sigh. Why do you think we're having this discussion?"

You have never quoted my pet analogy. I wonder why? Is it because you think it is silly and everyone should be able to own a pet? Because there is a large portion of people in the world that would disagree.

What makes your morals more right than theirs? (To answer this for you, it is because society as a whole agrees with you)
I haven't quoted it because it's neither here nor there. Personally, I haven't heard any convincing argument for why people shouldn't be able to own animals, and thus my morality allows for it. But so what?

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Ahh, so it takes this subjective meaning of "rarity" to decide what will be taxed?
It's not really subjective, as it's easily measured objectively: value. The value of naturally-occurring materials is a result of their rarity.

I have five rocks and nobody wants them, is that rare?
No.

Quote: I have 100 rocks and it has become a status symbol to wear rocks and 200 people want my rocks, is that rare?
Yes.

Quote: I say it is subjective because while supply is not elastic, demand is and depends on the wants and needs of society.
Whether something is in sufficient demand to have value, and to what extent it has value, is not subjective, even though the individual evaluations may be.

In my opinions that is wrong, value is completely subjective.

Demand only comes from what people want or need and wants and needs are completely subjective.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Because you don't use it in the same sense. When I use a piece of iron ore, I transform it into something totally different; say a hammer or a car. When I use a piece of land, it's not so much the matter itself that I'm using, but the location. I'm not changing the location in any way, and the location is generally the source of value.

Exactly, so if I take iron ore and make a hammer than I have taken away that persons ability to mine and make something he wants out of that ore. But with land, I take it and once I wish to sell it everyone has the opportunity to buy that land.

So wouldn't it be a greater injustice to society that I have taken that ore and made it to where noone else could ever use it?
What about the general gain in value land experiences due to population increases? This is the problem. Your iron ore is not likely to increase greatly in value, but land will. Your iron ore is not a requirement of life for all humans, but land is.

Technically land isn't required but space is, i.e. apartments. What about food and water, and clothing and essential needs, shouldn't we pay a tax on all food we eat, we are taking others right to eat that food away. What about healthcare and medecine people need that to live, shouldn't all this be provided by the government?


And maybe someday land will be to sparse for everyone to live but why harm others lifestyle till then? Or why not do as I said earlier and just assigen everyone a place to live, that way we could make sure everyone has an equal amount of land.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Yeah. And? Perhaps someone would rather have the trees you cleared. There's no guarantee your labor will result in value; cue the oft-cited digging holes in the ground example.

Exactly, which is why I don't like others determining how much my land is worth.

Under the current scenario, I own a piece of land. I put a house there and now someone wants it.

The offer me double what I paid for it, I then will be able to decide if that is worth what I put into it.

Under the LVT, if I think it is worth double it doesn't matter after five years a company would just price it out of what I could afford and someone else will compensate me for a "fair" amount. Once again decided by who? Appraisers that just see wood and mortar? Great :roll:
Oh, those mischeivous companies always pricing people out of their homes! That happens so frequently too.

Whether it happens frequently or not is irrelevant the fact that it could happen is why I tell LVTers that they don't realize the unintended consequences associated with the LVT

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: And I thought the market decided what the land is worth? The natural state would never change, so shouldn't the tax always stay the same?
Really? So; if a field in the middle of Manhattan had somehow been left in its natural state, you're claiming that the value wouldn't have changed between the time Manhattan was settled and now? I don't think so.

Oh, I agree the value has changed but why did you then state this:

Quote: Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state.
The example I gave you is of land in its natural state. A field, uchanged. In Manhattan. The land value has nothing to do with improvements to land, and everything to do with its location, and the state of the society around it.

So it won't be a tax proportional the land in its natural state but a tax proportional to the percieved value of that land.


Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Find me this magical pair of shears that lasts forever. Most shears are lucky to last 50 years. They, like you and me, will return to the earth soon enough.

Find me a person that will hold onto land forever.
He can pass it on to his children, can't he?

Quote: If I take wood and cut it down, how long will it take for that matter to be a tree again?

If I take land and chop all the trees down, how long will it take to grow all those trees back after I give up my deed to the land?

In both instances the value of the item is gone from society for only a while and after a person is done with it all others in society have the right to try and purchase it.
Sure, but in both cases you denied society a certain amount of value for a certain period of time.

Exactly, so why don't I pay a price on those shears for all the material I denied society?


Major

p.s. I do see where you are coming from but I think we just may have to agree to disagree. You can keep trying to convince people that land ownership is immoral and I will keep trying to convince them it is not. We will just have to wait and see who is more successful. :wink:

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Morality is subjective
Hence my asking you what you believed was right. Is someone that kills someone else and takes his land the rightful owner? I'm asking you a moral question.

Morally, it is wrong but the real question is why?
It violates the golden rule. I wouldn't want you to kill my family and take my house, therefore it is wrong for me to do it to you.

If I gave you $100 would I be morally justified by expecting $100 later in life? If I hated my sisters and want them to be hung would I then be able to hang your sisters?
Are you really unfamiliar with the golden rule?

Unless you are thinking of another golden rule, isn't it "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or something similar?

If I wanted you to hang my sister then wouldn't all I have to do is hang your sister? Granted that is pretty morbid but the "golden" rule isn't law

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Because society has defined it as wrong. It is not immoral to own land becuase society has yet to define it as such.

So, if you lived in Third Reich Germany it wouldn't be immoral to gas Jews, blacks, gays, or Gypsies? Again, I point to the fact that law doesn't always align with morality.

But didn't you just agree with me that morals are subjective?
If morality is subjective, it can't be defined by society, by definition. You seem to be arguing for relative morality, which I surely do not agree with. Are you a moral relativist? Whether you're explicitly aware of it or not, that's what you're arguing for.

It is defined by society though, unless you believe in god. I am arguing that something isn't considered immoral until the whole of the society deems it so.

Should we go back and prosecute all slave owners? It wasn't against the law when they owned slaves so why should they be punished by law?


Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: And I am telling you that what one person feels as an injustice is irrelevant until he has convinced society that there was an injustice.
I know what you're telling me. What you seem unable to grasp is that it's not an argument at all. Slavery was always wrong, for all of human history; whether it was one person, no people, or a million people that recognized the fact that it was wrong, it was always wrong. Pretending that that fact was irrelevant before slavery was outlawed is ridiculous; it was a horrible injustice that was very much relevant, and the fight to outlaw it was righteous.

1900 Me: "It's wrong that we don't allow women to vote."
1900 You: "It's not wrong unless society deems it to be!"
1900 Me: "Sigh. Why do you think we're having this discussion?"

You have never quoted my pet analogy. I wonder why? Is it because you think it is silly and everyone should be able to own a pet? Because there is a large portion of people in the world that would disagree.

What makes your morals more right than theirs? (To answer this for you, it is because society as a whole agrees with you)
I haven't quoted it because it's neither here nor there. Personally, I haven't heard any convincing argument for why people shouldn't be able to own animals, and thus my morality allows for it. But so what?

Ahh, so since you haven't been convinced it is immoral then it shouldn't be, isn't that a little egocentric? I feel it isn't immoral to own land and have yet to hear and convincing agrument for it and thus my morality allows it, as does most of the US population.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Whether something is in sufficient demand to have value, and to what extent it has value, is not subjective, even though the individual evaluations may be.

In my opinions that is wrong, value is completely subjective.

Demand only comes from what people want or need and wants and needs are completely subjective.
Values are the aggregate of wants and needs, in comparison to the supply. They're measured objectively all the time in the form of prices.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: What about the general gain in value land experiences due to population increases? This is the problem. Your iron ore is not likely to increase greatly in value, but land will. Your iron ore is not a requirement of life for all humans, but land is.

Technically land isn't required but space is, i.e. apartments.
I've never seen an apartment that didn't occupy land. Face facts, land is a requirement for human existence.

Quote: What about food and water, and clothing and essential needs, shouldn't we pay a tax on all food we eat, we are taking others right to eat that food away.
Water is abundant, and therefore has no value (fortunately, it's not as easy to monopolize water as it is land; though, should someone say, pollute a river, this does deny those downstream the right to use of equally good water, and should indeed be taxed). Food is the product of labor.

Quote: What about healthcare and medecine people need that to live, shouldn't all this be provided by the government?
I don't think so, personally. But if you believe this follows from my premise, you don't understand my argument very well.

Quote: And maybe someday land will be to sparse for everyone to live but why harm others lifestyle till then?
It's already too sparse, thanks to land ownership. You can't just go out and use some land; you must pay someone who has already claimed land a fee for using land. Regardless, you miss a bigger point: that there are differing qualities of land, that give some pieces of land greater utility. This value is measured by Ricardo's law of rent.

Quote: Or why not do as I said earlier and just assigen everyone a place to live, that way we could make sure everyone has an equal amount of land.
Three reasons:
1. the difficulties in doing so, given our current situation
2. the inequality of different parcels of land (value wise)
3. As population increases, the land must continuously be divided

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Oh, those mischeivous companies always pricing people out of their homes! That happens so frequently too.

Whether it happens frequently or not is irrelevant the fact that it could happen is why I tell LVTers that they don't realize the unintended consequences associated with the LVT
We realize it full well. It just happens that is is a very minor consideration when compared to the vast amount of injustice that springs from private land ownership. Problems like you describe would be the tiniest of exception were the LVT instituted, whereas human suffering is the rule with private land ownership.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The example I gave you is of land in its natural state. A field, uchanged. In Manhattan. The land value has nothing to do with improvements to land, and everything to do with its location, and the state of the society around it.

So it won't be a tax proportional the land in its natural state but a tax proportional to the percieved value of that land.
Yes, in its natural state (in other words, not counting value from improvements). There is no magical value apart from perceived value of land.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: He can pass it on to his children, can't he?

Quote: If I take wood and cut it down, how long will it take for that matter to be a tree again?

If I take land and chop all the trees down, how long will it take to grow all those trees back after I give up my deed to the land?

In both instances the value of the item is gone from society for only a while and after a person is done with it all others in society have the right to try and purchase it.
Sure, but in both cases you denied society a certain amount of value for a certain period of time.

Exactly, so why don't I pay a price on those shears for all the material I denied society?
The person who extracted the materials did.

Quote: p.s. I do see where you are coming from but I think we just may have to agree to disagree. You can keep trying to convince people that land ownership is immoral and I will keep trying to convince them it is not. We will just have to wait and see who is more successful. :wink:
I don't think you've really considered the issues with land ownership, and the problems that result from them. I'll give you the same challenge I did Cap'n, and ask that you read Progress and Poverty. If you read that, and you still feel that land ownership is just, well, then kudos to you; I don't see how it would be possible.

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
If the rights that come with land ownership are unfair to society in general then ban it. Make all land public and let the states charge rent to all building owners.

Well, this is, in essence, what the LVT does. It does it much easier than having the government assume control of all land, though.

If you have to pay anyone to use something then it's not yours, it's theirs.
It's no one's. No one owns land.

If that were true, we'd be living in anarchy. In fact, the government owns the land and we are all either tenants or sublessors.

Free Thinkr wrote:
All humans have equal rights to the use of land,...

If that were true there'd be no such thing as tresspassing.

Free Thinkr wrote:
...so land that has value due to relative advantages over land not in use is taxed an amount equal to that value, in order to secure equal rights to natural resources.

If an LVT is supposed to tax the full market value of real estate, it would destroying the real estate market. Before the LVT takes effect, everybody would be trying to sell their real estate but, nobody would want to buy. Real estate values would plumet and lots of urban land would transfer into official state ownership or into the hands of big businesses. Most real estate would be sold at such low prices that it would hardly generate enough revenue to pay for the Bush families Thanks Giving Day Turkey. After the LVT takes effect, there still wouldn't be any buyers but anyone left with real estate would face loosing all the money they get from selling it to the LVT. They might as well just give it up for free. Then, the LVT would be just another tool the state can use to keep small businesses out of business in urban areas.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
I would prefer a flat fee per square area (foot, acre, whatever) regardless of location or demand in order to keep the states themselves from exploiting the people.

This is problematic. Business owners who use land in rural areas would be at a massive disadvantage to those using land in urban areas. Land values vary for very real reasons; namely, advantages gained from using specific locations.

It's not problematic, it's simple. How would this create a "massive disadvantage" between rural and urban businesses? A disadvantage of what nature? Please be more specific.

Two retailers: one in downtown Manhattan, another in Yonkers. Both pay the same amount of tax for the land they use. Who stands to profit more from the land they use? Clearly, the retailer in Manhattan, as the number of people that pass the store is likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater. The land in Manhattan has a much greater value because of this. Charging by area would be a land tax, which has none of the advantages of a land value tax (in fact, it fails in the very most important aspect of the LVT: securing equal rights to the bounty of nature).

But the LVT is based on the market value of the land, not on the profit potential of the the business that operates on it. If we're trying to "securing equal rights to the bounty of nature" then a tax should be flat and it should apply to all land regardless of location. Why would you want to make it impossible for individuals and families to start and run successful small business in urban areas?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
At the same time, we can prohibit building owners from collecting more then twice the rent from their tenants than what they pay to the state. For example, if I build a 500 unit apartment complex on 10 square acres of land in up state New York and my rent to the state is a flat $100/acre/month ($1,000/mo), I would not be allowed to collect more then $2,000/mo from each of my tenants or $1,000,000/mo total.

This isn't a very good idea either. Price controls always end up acting as a disincentive to improvements.

What "improvements"?

Any sort of building or improving.

How would a thousand dollars a month in rent to the state disincentivize me from maintaining and improving my property when I'm collecting a million dollars a month in rent from my tenants?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Price controls are about controlling market prices but, by making all land public, we are removing land from the free market environment which creates the all the problems the LVT is predicated upon. Assuming the state operates as a nonprofit organization (which it should) the price for land should NOT be based on market factors like location and demand but on something essential and to the point like area so that it can be totally affordable for everyone- rural and urban.

I was referring to controls on the apartment rental rates.

Rental rate hiking is the main instrument that landholders use to extract the value of the infrustructure of society? Of course it needs to be controled. In fact, why not directly cap rent rates? We can institute a rent cap law similar in concept to the minimum wage. In fact, it can be directly related to the minimum wage- say no more than 57.78 times the minimum wage.

40 working hours a week * 52 weeks in a year = 2080 working hours a year

2080 working hours a year / 12 months = 173.33 working hours a month

173.33 working hours a month / 3 (1/3 monthly income) = 57.78 rent factor

Your states minimum wage * 57.78 rent factor = The maximum rental rate your 'landlord' (sublessor) can charge you per month

I like this even better! Then the state can charge him/her a percentage of that- say ~50%.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
In case it seems like it, I'm NOT promoting any sort of communism here. I am simply drawing from the natural laws of ownership. When you own something, it's yours. Only you have the right to use your property and only you can give consent to others to use your property- even for a fee. Taxes are essentially user fees. The government cannot (...should not have the power to..) tax you for using your own property. If the government is to be allowed to tax us for the use of land then it must own that land; the land must be public.

Well, it's impossible for anyone to truly own land. The government need not "own" the land in any sense, it simply needs to treat the situation how it really is: that it is managing the use of land.

There is only one sense of ownership that I am aware. Either we are allowed to own land and trade it to the highest bidder on the free market or not. If not, then it is because the land is under state ownership.

Not so. This is a false dilemma. Not everything is owned.

Give me one example of something that isn't owned.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Only then should the state have the right to manage it.

Why is that? The state manages radio, but it doesn't "own" radio frequencies, does it?

No, but it owns the land your radio station sits on. That makes the state your landlord which means it can regulate almost anything you do. Of course, you can claim to be the lord of your land, the king of your castle but, you'd just be kidding yourself.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The landlord has the right to set the rules of his property so, in order for the state to tax and regulate anything, it must do so as the landlord which means private land ownership should be impossible.

Nonsense. The state levies taxes on land currently via the property tax. Clearly, the government isn't considered a landlord because of this.

Nonsense. Property taxes are no different than a rental fees. Clearly, only landlords and sublessors can charge rental fees.

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Whether something is in sufficient demand to have value, and to what extent it has value, is not subjective, even though the individual evaluations may be.

In my opinions that is wrong, value is completely subjective.

Demand only comes from what people want or need and wants and needs are completely subjective.
Values are the aggregate of wants and needs, in comparison to the supply. They're measured objectively all the time in the form of prices.

Agreed, value comes from what people need or want, based on what they personally value.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: What about the general gain in value land experiences due to population increases? This is the problem. Your iron ore is not likely to increase greatly in value, but land will. Your iron ore is not a requirement of life for all humans, but land is.

Technically land isn't required but space is, i.e. apartments.
I've never seen an apartment that didn't occupy land. Face facts, land is a requirement for human existence.

Aye, but you can exponentially add "living space" to a finite piece of land.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: What about food and water, and clothing and essential needs, shouldn't we pay a tax on all food we eat, we are taking others right to eat that food away.
Water is abundant, and therefore has no value (fortunately, it's not as easy to monopolize water as it is land; though, should someone say, pollute a river, this does deny those downstream the right to use of equally good water, and should indeed be taxed). Food is the product of labor.

In one way or another you are still denying a person that right to either water or animal.

You say food is the product of labor but if I level land, clear brush, exterminate all animal predators from a parcel of land, then why can't I enjoy the fruits of my labor?

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: What about healthcare and medecine people need that to live, shouldn't all this be provided by the government?
I don't think so, personally. But if you believe this follows from my premise, you don't understand my argument very well.

Because your argument doesn't make sense.

I may have this wrong but isn't your agrument that land ownership denies others from using that land and since they need land to live the land onwers should compensate them?

Why is this different than healthcare or medicine? If I buy pills that helps me to live then I am taking away your ability to use those pills, thus taking away your ability to live.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: And maybe someday land will be to sparse for everyone to live but why harm others lifestyle till then?
It's already too sparse, thanks to land ownership. You can't just go out and use some land; you must pay someone who has already claimed land a fee for using land. Regardless, you miss a bigger point: that there are differing qualities of land, that give some pieces of land greater utility. This value is measured by Ricardo's law of rent.

Bull spit on the already too sparse aspect. There are millions of acres of unoccupied land. And eveyone has the right to purchase some, you just have to offer enough money to make someone sell it to you.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Or why not do as I said earlier and just assigen everyone a place to live, that way we could make sure everyone has an equal amount of land.
Three reasons:
1. the difficulties in doing so, given our current situation
2. the inequality of different parcels of land (value wise)
3. As population increases, the land must continuously be divided

1. Ahh, you want to completely change the way the US determines land rights but it is too difficult to divide the land equally to all?
2. As long as it is the same amount of sq. feet what's the difference? We are talking about having land to live not to live comfortably.
3. There is plenty of unused land that we could set aside for additions in the population

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Oh, those mischeivous companies always pricing people out of their homes! That happens so frequently too.

Whether it happens frequently or not is irrelevant the fact that it could happen is why I tell LVTers that they don't realize the unintended consequences associated with the LVT
We realize it full well. It just happens that is is a very minor consideration when compared to the vast amount of injustice that springs from private land ownership. Problems like you describe would be the tiniest of exception were the LVT instituted, whereas human suffering is the rule with private land ownership.

Ahh, so as long as it is a "inconvienence" to a few it is ok because it solves your "percieved" justice system.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The example I gave you is of land in its natural state. A field, uchanged. In Manhattan. The land value has nothing to do with improvements to land, and everything to do with its location, and the state of the society around it.

So it won't be a tax proportional the land in its natural state but a tax proportional to the percieved value of that land.
Yes, in its natural state (in other words, not counting value from improvements). There is no magical value apart from perceived value of land.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: He can pass it on to his children, can't he?

Quote: If I take wood and cut it down, how long will it take for that matter to be a tree again?

If I take land and chop all the trees down, how long will it take to grow all those trees back after I give up my deed to the land?

In both instances the value of the item is gone from society for only a while and after a person is done with it all others in society have the right to try and purchase it.
Sure, but in both cases you denied society a certain amount of value for a certain period of time.

Exactly, so why don't I pay a price on those shears for all the material I denied society?
The person who extracted the materials did.

Only once though right? Those materials will be denied to society for as long as he owns them yet he only had to pay a tax once.

Land will also be denied to society for as long as someone owns it but you want them to continue to pay society and in fact have to bid for the right to keep using it.


MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: p.s. I do see where you are coming from but I think we just may have to agree to disagree. You can keep trying to convince people that land ownership is immoral and I will keep trying to convince them it is not. We will just have to wait and see who is more successful. :wink:
I don't think you've really considered the issues with land ownership, and the problems that result from them. I'll give you the same challenge I did Cap'n, and ask that you read Progress and Poverty. If you read that, and you still feel that land ownership is just, well, then kudos to you; I don't see how it would be possible.

I will if you do me one favor, get married, move to the midwest, buy a home with 10 acres, raise 2 kids and then tell me you don't like land ownership.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It's no one's. No one owns land.
If that were true, we'd be living in anarchy. In fact, the government owns the land and we are all either tenants or sublessors.
Non-sequitur, assertion.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: All humans have equal rights to the use of land,...
If that were true there'd be no such thing as tresspassing.
It is true, and the reason there's trespassing is that our society fails to recognize this right.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ...so land that has value due to relative advantages over land not in use is taxed an amount equal to that value, in order to secure equal rights to natural resources.
If an LVT is supposed to tax the full market value of real estate, it would destroying the real estate market.
Naturally.

Quote: Before the LVT takes effect, everybody would be trying to sell their real estate but, nobody would want to buy.
Right.

Quote: Real estate values would plumet and lots of land would transfer into state ownership or into the hands of big businesses.
Indeed, freeing up land for use, and reducing startup costs for entreprenuers. The fact that they'd be looking to get rid of their land is evidence that they're holding it, not to use it, but to charge others rent for its use.

Quote: Most real estate would be sold at such low prices that it would hardly generate enough revenue to pay for the Bush families Thanks Giving Day Turkey.
Sweet.

Quote: After the LVT takes effect, there still wouldn't be any buyers but anyone left with real estate would face loosing all the money they get from selling it to the LVT. They might as well just give it up for free.
If they're not using it, they damn well should.

Quote: Then, the LVT would be just another tool the state can use to keep small businesses out of business in urban areas.
Quite the opposite. People would be compelled to put the land to its best possible use, to give them the highest margin of profit after the LVT was paid.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: It's not problematic, it's simple. How would this create a "massive disadvantage" between rural and urban businesses? A disadvantage of what nature? Please be more specific.
Two retailers: one in downtown Manhattan, another in Yonkers. Both pay the same amount of tax for the land they use. Who stands to profit more from the land they use? Clearly, the retailer in Manhattan, as the number of people that pass the store is likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater. The land in Manhattan has a much greater value because of this. Charging by area would be a land tax, which has none of the advantages of a land value tax (in fact, it fails in the very most important aspect of the LVT: securing equal rights to the bounty of nature).
But the LVT is based on the market value of the land, not on the profit potential of the the business that operates on it. If we're trying to "securing equal rights to the bounty of nature" then a tax should be flat and it should apply to all land regardless of location.
No, because this fails to take into account that some locations are better than others. That's the origin of land values, and the reason why land values are taxed.

Quote: Why would you want to make it impossible for individuals and families to start and run successful small business in urban areas?
You wouldn't. Why are you claiming that it somehow would be? IOW, I'm not following your reasoning.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: What "improvements"?
Any sort of building or improving.
How would a thousand dollars a month in rent to the state disincentivize me from maintaining and improving my property when I'm collecting a million dollars a month in rent from my tenants?
It wouldn't. Again, I'm referring to your rent controls.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: Price controls are about controlling market prices but, by making all land public, we are removing land from the free market environment which creates the all the problems the LVT is predicated upon. Assuming the state operates as a nonprofit organization (which it should) the price for land should NOT be based on market factors like location and demand but on something essential and to the point like area so that it can be totally affordable for everyone- rural and urban.
I was referring to controls on the apartment rental rates.
Rental rate hiking is the main instrument that landholders use to extract the value of the infrustructure of society?
No. They have to compete with other buildings; the land monopoly is the main whey they extract value of th infrastructure of society.

Quote: Of course it needs to be controled. In fact, why not directly cap rent rates? We can institute a rent cap law similar in concept to the minimum wage. In fact, it can be directly related to the minimum wage- say no more than 57.78 times the minimum wage.

40 working hours a week * 52 weeks in a year = 2080 working hours a year

2080 working hours a year / 12 months = 173.33 working hours a month

173.33 working hours a month / 3 (1/3 monthly income) = 57.78 rent factor

Your states minimum wage * 57.78 rent factor = The maximum rental rate your 'landlord' (sublessor) can charge you per month

I like this even better! Then the state can charge him/her a percentage of that- say ~50%.
Rental rates have been capped many times. They've been capped in New York, in fact. The result is always the same: worse living conditions.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: There is only one sense of ownership that I am aware. Either we are allowed to own land and trade it to the highest bidder on the free market or not. If not, then it is because the land is under state ownership.
Not so. This is a false dilemma. Not everything is owned.

Give me one example of something that isn't owned.
Humans. The moon. Air. (Ideas, for the most part :P)

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: Only then should the state have the right to manage it.
Why is that? The state manages radio, but it doesn't "own" radio frequencies, does it?
No, but it owns the land your radio station sits on.
Well, then you've proved your prior claim false. The government manages radio, but does not own it.

Quote: That makes the state your landlord which means it can regulate almost anything you do. Of course, you can claim to be the lord of your land, the king of your castle but, you'd just be kidding yourself.
Pttch. The state can regulate anything you do, theoretically. The fact that it would tax the land's value doesn't necessarily mean it would be a landlord.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: The landlord has the right to set the rules of his property so, in order for the state to tax and regulate anything, it must do so as the landlord which means private land ownership should be impossible.
Nonsense. The state levies taxes on land currently via the property tax. Clearly, the government isn't considered a landlord because of this.
Nonsense. Property taxes are no different than a rental fees. Clearly, only landlords can charge rental fees.
So, let's be clear: are you here asserting that the government is currently the landlord of all land?

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: I've never seen an apartment that didn't occupy land. Face facts, land is a requirement for human existence.
Aye, but you can exponentially add "living space" to a finite piece of land.
To a point. Even so, people still require access to land. Production is the application of labor to land. Production, therefore, requires access to land.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Water is abundant, and therefore has no value (fortunately, it's not as easy to monopolize water as it is land; though, should someone say, pollute a river, this does deny those downstream the right to use of equally good water, and should indeed be taxed). Food is the product of labor.
In one way or another you are still denying a person that right to either water or animal.
It's not about particular water molecules or a particular animal. It's about denying them access to equally-good quality of a natural resource. By drinking some water or flushing a toilet, I may be denying you access to that particular bit of water, but water is sufficiently abundant that my action does not infringe upon your right to use equally good water.

Quote: You say food is the product of labor but if I level land, clear brush, exterminate all animal predators from a parcel of land, then why can't I enjoy the fruits of my labor?
You can. You'll only be taxed for the land, not the improvements. What you fail to understand is that there might have been other people willing to level the land, clear the brush, and exterminate the predators. Those improvements don't somehow make the land yours.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: I don't think so, personally. But if you believe this follows from my premise, you don't understand my argument very well.
Because your argument doesn't make sense.
No, you just haven't bothered to consider it enough to understand it. Before you even understood my position, you opposed it with only a half-understanding. This is why you are lost.

Quote: I may have this wrong but isn't your agrument that land ownership denies others from using that land and since they need land to live the land onwers should compensate them?
More or less. It boils down to people having equal right to the use of natural resources.

Quote: Why is this different than healthcare or medicine? If I buy pills that helps me to live then I am taking away your ability to use those pills, thus taking away your ability to live.
Were those pills the natural bounty of the world? No.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It's already too sparse, thanks to land ownership. You can't just go out and use some land; you must pay someone who has already claimed land a fee for using land. Regardless, you miss a bigger point: that there are differing qualities of land, that give some pieces of land greater utility. This value is measured by Ricardo's law of rent.
Bull spit on the already too sparse aspect. There are millions of acres of unoccupied land.
Unoccupied? You bet. Unowned? Nope.

Quote: And eveyone has the right to purchase some, you just have to offer enough money to make someone sell it to you.
And who did the original owners purchase it from? God? Did they buy the land from God himself? If not, why do they have the right to charge me for it?

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Or why not do as I said earlier and just assigen everyone a place to live, that way we could make sure everyone has an equal amount of land.
Three reasons:
1. the difficulties in doing so, given our current situation
2. the inequality of different parcels of land (value wise)
3. As population increases, the land must continuously be divided
1. Ahh, you want to completely change the way the US determines land rights but it is too difficult to divide the land equally to all?
One involves levying a tax, the other involves nullifying all current land claims, and moving virtually every citizen. You do the math.

Quote: 2. As long as it is the same amount of sq. feet what's the difference? We are talking about having land to live not to live comfortably.
You have a right to equally good land. Why should someone get a parcel of land in Manhattan, and another a swamp in Georgia? That doesn't secure equal rights in any sense.

Quote: 3. There is plenty of unused land that we could set aside for additions in the population
Indefinitely? Face it, that method fails on all accounts.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: We realize it full well. It just happens that is is a very minor consideration when compared to the vast amount of injustice that springs from private land ownership. Problems like you describe would be the tiniest of exception were the LVT instituted, whereas human suffering is the rule with private land ownership.
Ahh, so as long as it is a "inconvienence" to a few it is ok because it solves your "percieved" justice system.
It's by far the lesser of the two evils.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The person who extracted the materials did.
Only once though right? Those materials will be denied to society for as long as he owns them yet he only had to pay a tax once.

Land will also be denied to society for as long as someone owns it but you want them to continue to pay society and in fact have to bid for the right to keep using it.
A small piece of iron and the surface of the earth are hardly comparable. Is it likely that you'll sell the steel in, say, a hammer in the future for profit? I don't think so. That demonstrates that I'm not actually denying society any value. Land, on the other hand, virtually always appreciates, and thus is sold at a profit as a rule. That demonstrates you are denying society of value.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: I don't think you've really considered the issues with land ownership, and the problems that result from them. I'll give you the same challenge I did Cap'n, and ask that you read Progress and Poverty. If you read that, and you still feel that land ownership is just, well, then kudos to you; I don't see how it would be possible.
I will if you do me one favor, get married, move to the midwest, buy a home with 10 acres, raise 2 kids and then tell me you don't like land ownership.
Well, I'm not married and I have no kids, but I live in the Midwest. I fail to see how land ownership would assist me in any way were I to get married and have kids, however. Rather than paying no taxes on my income and purchases and paying a tax equal to the value of the land I use, I instead would have to pay income tax, sales tax, property tax, and in addition to that, would have to pay some random person for the land I used. I'd be paying far more with land ownership than without.

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote: So, let's be clear: are you here asserting that the government is currently the landlord of all land?
duh - look to property taxes, Eminent Domain, Etc.

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: So, let's be clear: are you here asserting that the government is currently the landlord of all land?
duh - look to property taxes, Eminent Domain, Etc.
Fine, then. I guess it depends on how you define it. My point in clarifying was to point out that, if that is his belief, he shouldn't use that as an argument against the LVT.

[gavnook]

Free Thinkr wrote: ...but water is sufficiently abundant that my action does not infringe upon your right to use equally good water.

You can say the same about land.

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
It's no one's. No one owns land.

Then what gives the state the right to make the laws? The federal Constitution, right? Text books describe the Constitution and the political notions underlying the structure of our democratic republic as something unique but, it's really a hierarchy of sublessorships under one ultimate owner. The federal Constitution created a federal government which became the owner of all the lands in the U.S.A.. This is why federal laws trump all other laws and state laws trump city laws etc. etc.. As sublessors of the federal government, the several states have the right to make the laws that apply everywhere within their boarders, but with respect to federal laws. Counties are a second level of sublessors, cities are a third. Finally, we come to private sublessors ('owners') who must respect the laws of three levels of government sublessorships and one federal ownership. This also explains the basis of the notion of eminent domain which is when land is reclaimed from a tenant or sublessor by the owner or a sublessor of higher authority.

Free Thinkr wrote:
The reason there's trespassing is that our society fails to recognize that all humans have equal right to the use of land.

That's because we've already succeeded in recognizing that such a right is logistically impossible. If more than one person has the same right to use the same item of property, the mere act of using that property by any one of those persons infringes on every other persons right to do the same. As soon as more than one person wants to use the item at once, it creates a conflict of interest which can lead to fighting and someone getting hurt or killed. This sort of barbarity is why we invented the concept of ownership. Only the owner of an item of property has the right to use that property and, for every item of property, there can be only one owner at a time.

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
...so land that has value due to relative advantages over land not in use is taxed an amount equal to that value, in order to secure equal rights to natural resources.

If an LVT is supposed to tax the full market value of real estate, it would destroying the real estate market.

Naturally.

Harbinger wrote:
Before the LVT takes effect, everybody would be trying to sell their real estate but, nobody would want to buy.

Right.

Harbinger wrote:
Real estate values would plummet and lots of land would transfer into state ownership or into the hands of big businesses.

Indeed, freeing up land for use, and reducing start-up costs for entrepreneurs. The fact that they'd be looking to get rid of their land is evidence that they're holding it, not to use it, but to charge others rent for its use.

For use by who? The LVT would be so hugely expensive that NOBODY could afford it.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Most real estate would be sold at such low prices that it would hardly generate enough revenue to pay for the Bush families Thanks Giving Day Turkey.

Sweet.

Then it's definitely not an alternative to the income tax system. You just want to add a whopper tax to the existing tax heap while I'm trying to throw the tax heap in the trash.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
After the LVT takes effect, there still wouldn't be any buyers but anyone left with real estate would face loosing all the money they get from selling it to the LVT. They might as well just give it up for free.

If they're not using it, they damn well should.

The LVT wouldn't just apply to people who aren't using their land. Anyone who can't afford the LVT, would be forced to sell- pretty much everyone.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Then, the LVT would be just another tool the state can use to keep small businesses out of business in urban areas.

Quite the opposite. People would be compelled to put the land to its best possible use, to give them the highest margin of profit after the LVT was paid.

Nonsense! The LVT would increase all costs of production, increasing consumer prices across the board, including rent, and that would increase the cost of living.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
But the LVT is based on the market value of the land, not on the profit potential of the the business that operates on it. If we're trying to "securing equal rights to the bounty of nature" then a tax should be flat and it should apply to all land regardless of location.

No, because this fails to take into account that some locations are better than others. That's the origin of land values, and the reason why land values are taxed.

This is the origin of land values in a free market. The LVT is aimed at destroying the free market. With everyone selling and nobody but the state buying, all land would eventually become public and three hundred millon people would eventually have no choice but to squat on public land without paying the LVT. Land would still have value, it would just be traded in a free underground market. That would be a shame because the state would no longer have the ability to protect property rights.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Rental rate hiking is the main instrument that landholders use to extract the value of the infrastructure of society?

No. They have to compete with other buildings. The land monopoly is the main whey they extract value from the infrastructure of society.

Regardless of who does it, rent is the means by which it is done. My solution is a fair and simple rent cap equal to one third the gross monthly income of a full time minimum wage worker. Your solution is a tax that would destroy the real estate market along with the rest of the economy. 'Overkill' would be an understatement.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Rental rates have been capped many times. They've been capped in New York, in fact. The result is always the same: worse living conditions.

Makes sense to me. Healthy competition is what keep prices down and quality up so, any situation that calls for price controls also calls for quality control. It sounds like N.Y.'s rent caps missed the whole quality half of the control equation.

My rent cap idea would work hand in hand with existing state health code standards. :-D

The LVT... well, I can't even imagine. :cry:

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
There is only one sense of ownership that I am aware. Either we are allowed to own land and trade it to the highest bidder on the free market or not. If not, then it is because the land is under state ownership.

Not so. This is a false dilemma. Not everything is owned.

Give me one example of something that isn't owned.

Humans. The moon. Air. (Ideas, for the most part :P)

People own themselves. That's what gives us the right to control our own bodies, sell our labor, defend ourselves from aggression and it's what gives women the right to choose. Of course, something isn't yours unless and until you claim it. In 1969 a NASA astronaut planted an American flag on the surface of the moon. I believe it's still there. That, I would say, makes the moon the property of the US government. If I own a balloon and I blow air into my balloon, then I own the air which I have collect in my balloon- I have claimed it. As far as ideas go, they're yours until you give them away. :wink:

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Only then should the state have the right to manage it.

Why is that? The state manages radio, but it doesn't "own" radio frequencies, does it?

No, but it owns the land your radio station sits on.

Well, then you've proved your prior claim false. The government manages radio, but does not own it.

Not quite! Owning a radio transmitter on your own land would certainly give you the right to use your radio however you want because you would own the airspace above your land as well as the land itself. Well, the same applies to Uncle Sam. The federal government owns the airspace above it's land and that gives it the right to regulate what happens in that space- air traffic, air pollution and radio emissions.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
That makes the state your landlord which means it can regulate almost anything you do. Of course, you can claim to be the lord of your land, the king of your castle but, you'd just be kidding yourself.

Pttch. The state can regulate anything you do, theoretically. The fact that it would tax the land's value doesn't necessarily mean it would be a landlord.

If it wasn't for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the government would be regulating everything we do. It would own us like slaves which isn't as far from our current situation as people might think.

Only a land owner can tax the people on his land.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The landlord has the right to set the rules of his property so, in order for the state to tax and regulate anything, it must do so as the landlord which means private land ownership should be impossible.

Nonsense. The state levies taxes on land currently via the property tax. Clearly, the government isn't considered a landlord because of this.
Nonsense. Property taxes are no different than a rental fees. Clearly, only landlords can charge rental fees.

So, let's be clear: are you here asserting that the government is currently the landlord of all land?

Not all land, just the land within it's territories, absolutely.

[Free Thinkr]

gavnook wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ...but water is sufficiently abundant that my action does not infringe upon your right to use equally good water.

You can say the same about land.
No you can't, because unlike water, most land is claimed. Also unlike water, the value of land is largely dependent on factors not owing to the land, but owing to the society upon the land.

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
It's no one's. No one owns land.

Then what gives the state the right to make the laws?
?? The will of the governed, of course.

Quote: The federal Constitution, right?
No, the constitution is a piece of paper that describes the rules government is limited to.

Quote: Text books describe the Constitution and the political notions underlying the structure of our democratic republic as something unique but, it's really a hierarchy of sublessorships under one ultimate owner. The federal Constitution created a federal government which became the owner of all the lands in the U.S.A.. This is why federal laws trump all other laws and state laws trump city laws etc. etc.. As sublessors of the federal government, the several states have the right to make the laws that apply everywhere within their boarders, but with respect to federal laws. Counties are a second level of sublessors, cities are a third. Finally, we come to private sublessors ('owners') who must respect the laws of three levels of government sublessorships and one federal ownership. This also explains the basis of the notion of eminent domain which is when land is reclaimed from a tenant or sublessor by the owner or a sublessor of higher authority.
No, not really. The simple fact is that government manages the land within certain borders; individuals can hold 'ownership' rights, which they can sell to others.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The reason there's trespassing is that our society fails to recognize that all humans have equal right to the use of land.
That's because we've already succeeded in recognizing that such a right is logistically impossible. If more than one person has the same right to use the same item of property, the mere act of using that property by any one of those persons infringes on every other persons right to do the same.
Hence compensation.

Quote: As soon as more than one person wants to use the item at once, it creates a conflict of interest which can lead to fighting and someone getting hurt or killed. This sort of barbarity is why we invented the concept of ownership. Only the owner of an item of property has the right to use that property and, for every item of property, there can be only one owner at a time.
Problem is, our ownership in land is baseless. Why does one person get to own such and such piece of land? Accident of history.

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: If an LVT is supposed to tax the full market value of real estate, it would destroying the real estate market.
Naturally.

Harbinger wrote: Before the LVT takes effect, everybody would be trying to sell their real estate but, nobody would want to buy.
Right.

Harbinger wrote: Real estate values would plummet and lots of land would transfer into state ownership or into the hands of big businesses.
Indeed, freeing up land for use, and reducing start-up costs for entrepreneurs. The fact that they'd be looking to get rid of their land is evidence that they're holding it, not to use it, but to charge others rent for its use.
For use by who?
Anyone who wants to use it. Those actually using land will continue to do so; those simply holding it will be compelled to give it up.

Quote: The LVT would be so hugely expensive that NOBODY could afford it.
Nonsense. The LVT can't, by definition, be too expensive for people to afford it. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the LVT at all.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: Most real estate would be sold at such low prices that it would hardly generate enough revenue to pay for the Bush families Thanks Giving Day Turkey.
Sweet.
Then it's definitely not an alternative to the income tax system. You just want to add a whopper tax to the existing tax heap while I'm trying to throw the tax heap in the trash.
The land values would drop, specifically because the tax value would replace the market value. Let's imagine that rent was 10% of sale value. You have a piece of land worth $100,000. The LVT is instituted, and set at a rate of 90%. Your yearly rent on that land would then be $10,000. Now, you weren't actually using the land, but holding it in the hope of profiting via an increase in the land's value. So now, you have a piece of land that's bringing you no revenue whatever, but is costing you $10,000 per year. So you sell the piece of land. The buyer, knowing that the land is worth $100,000 but will be taxed $10,000 per year will not pay you the full market value, but only the 10% that isn't taxed. You will sell the land, then, for $10,000; the other $90,000 of the land's value will in effect go to the government, because the buyer knows that he will have a tax obligation on the land in advance.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: After the LVT takes effect, there still wouldn't be any buyers but anyone left with real estate would face loosing all the money they get from selling it to the LVT. They might as well just give it up for free.
If they're not using it, they damn well should.
The LVT wouldn't just apply to people who aren't using their land. Anyone who can't afford the LVT, would be forced to sell- pretty much everyone.
Give your head a shake, as Roy would say. How could it ever be that pretty much everyone was forced to sell? Sell to whom?

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: Then, the LVT would be just another tool the state can use to keep small businesses out of business in urban areas.
Quite the opposite. People would be compelled to put the land to its best possible use, to give them the highest margin of profit after the LVT was paid.
Nonsense! The LVT would increase all costs of production, increasing consumer prices across the board, including rent, and that would increase the cost of living.
No, it would greatly reduce the costs of production, both by lowering land costs and by doing away with current taxes on production.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: But the LVT is based on the market value of the land, not on the profit potential of the the business that operates on it. If we're trying to "securing equal rights to the bounty of nature" then a tax should be flat and it should apply to all land regardless of location.
No, because this fails to take into account that some locations are better than others. That's the origin of land values, and the reason why land values are taxed.
This is the origin of land values in a free market. The LVT is aimed at destroying the free market. With everyone selling and nobody but the state buying, all land would eventually become public and three hundred millon people would eventually have no choice but to squat on public land without paying the LVT. Land would still have value, it would just be traded in a free underground market. That would be a shame because the state would no longer have the ability to protect property rights.
What in the hell are you talking about? First of all, the state wouldn't be "buying." Second of all, your claim that "everyone would be selling" is patently nonsensical. Why would the state tax at a rate higher than market value, when the result would be the land going unused, and thus bring in no revenue? Please bother to think before posting.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote: Rental rate hiking is the main instrument that landholders use to extract the value of the infrastructure of society?
No. They have to compete with other buildings. The land monopoly is the main whey they extract value from the infrastructure of society.
Regardless of who does it, rent is the means by which it is done. My solution is a fair and simple rent cap equal to one third the gross monthly income of a full time minimum wage worker.
Again, I point out the fact that rents have been capped before, and the result is always negative.

Quote: Your solution is a tax that would destroy the real estate market along with the rest of the economy. 'Overkill' would be an understatement.
Destroy the economy, huh? How, exactly? Oh, that's right: the people would all sell their land for some unknown reason, and, somehow, the state, whose funds depend solely on the revenue gleaned from taxing land values, would somehow buy it all up. That about the long and short of it? Think that through for a bit, champ.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Rental rates have been capped many times. They've been capped in New York, in fact. The result is always the same: worse living conditions.
Makes sense to me. Healthy competition is what keep prices down and quality up so, any situation that calls for price controls also calls for quality control. It sounds like N.Y.'s rent caps missed the whole quality half of the control equation.

My rent cap idea would work hand in hand with existing state health code standards. :-D
How, exactly? If I can charge a rent no higher that X, and neither can anyone else, why exactly should I bother with improvements?

Quote: The LVT... well, I can't even imagine. :cry:
You sure can't, because your understanding of it is so poor as to fall well short of giving you even the most basic of understanding of the effects.

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Humans. The moon. Air. (Ideas, for the most part :P)
People own themselves. That's what gives us the right to control our own bodies, sell our labor, defend ourselves from aggression and it's what gives women the right to choose.
No, people don't "own" themselves. I'm too tired to bother with it; hey Rue, where you at?

Quote: Of course, something isn't yours unless and until you claim it. In 1969 a NASA astronaut planted an American flag on the surface of the moon. I believe it's still there. That, I would say, makes the moon the property of the US government.
LOL, really? Was the new world the property of King Ferdinand?

Quote: If I own a balloon and I blow air into my balloon, then I own the air which I have collect in my balloon- I have claimed it.
You don't own air itself, though you may be temporarily holding a bit of it.

Quote: As far as ideas go, they're yours until you give them away. :wink:
Sure they're yours, but ownership implies more than just posession.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Well, then you've proved your prior claim false. The government manages radio, but does not own it.
Not quite! Owning a radio transmitter on your own land would certainly give you the right to use your radio however you want because you would own the airspace above your land as well as the land itself. Well, the same applies to Uncle Sam. The federal government owns the airspace above it's land and that gives it the right to regulate what happens in that space- air traffic, air pollution and radio emissions.
Hmmm. What of intnernational transmissions? What of satellites?

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Pttch. The state can regulate anything you do, theoretically. The fact that it would tax the land's value doesn't necessarily mean it would be a landlord.
If it wasn't for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the government would be regulating everything we do. It would own us like slaves which isn't as far from our current situation as people might think.
Well, I point out the fact that ammendments can be passed.

Quote: Only a land owner can tax the people on his land.
Assertion.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: So, let's be clear: are you here asserting that the government is currently the landlord of all land?
Not all land, just the land within it's territories, absolutely.
How, then, is it people buy and sell land?

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
It's no one's. No one owns land.

Then what gives the state the right to make the laws?

?? The will of the governed, of course.

I wish! That would be a direct democracy. We live in a republic which only follows the wills of the governors.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The federal Constitution, right?

No, the constitution is a piece of paper that describes the rules government is limited to.

Yes, it brings the federal and state governments into existence by describing how and to what extent they may make the laws of their lands. The result is a federal government with the ultimate authority of an owner and a public (states, counties, cities and people) of tenants and sublessors. Although being tenant and sublessors grants us many of the same rights as being an owner would, it is incorrect and misleading for us to refer to ourselves owners.

Free Thinkr wrote:
No, not really. The simple fact is that government manages the land within certain borders;

The federal government manages all the land within it's borders, both public and private. That, by definition, makes it he owner.

Free Thinkr wrote:
individuals can hold 'ownership' rights, which they can sell to others.

The right to rent and trade property are rights of sublessors, they do not make us owners. Individuals can hold and use other peoples land with 'limited' ownership rights which are extended to them either by the actual owner or by a sublessor of higher authority. (state, county, city etc.). They can still dictate what we can and cannot do with our land or even take it away (eminent domain) which means we aren't real owners.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
The reason there's trespassing is that our society fails to recognize that all humans have equal right to the use of land.

That's because we've already succeeded in recognizing that such a right is logistically impossible. If more than one person has the same right to use the same item of property, the mere act of using that property by any one of those persons infringes on every other persons right to do the same.

Hence compensation.

Hence taxation! Taxation only compensates the owner or sublessor of the property, in this case the state or federal government. There is no guarantee (in fact no way in hell) that government officials are going to compensate the people according to your principles of egalitarianism.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
As soon as more than one person wants to use the item at once, it creates a conflict of interest which can lead to fighting and someone getting hurt or killed. This sort of barbarity is why we invented the concept of ownership. Only the owner of an item of property has the right to use that property and, for every item of property, there can be only one owner at a time.

Problem is, our ownership in land is baseless. Why does one person get to own such and such piece of land? Accident of history.

In nature, you must fight to get what you want and fight to keep what you have. People invented ownership out if respect for one another and as a way of establish user rights over property thereby avoiding conflicts and disputes that lead to fighting. Of course, anyone of poor character can choose not to recognize ownership but such disrespect tends to be rather unhealthy for them.