out of the box thought on taxes

You have stated a mythology.

you argument is no different than

"Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so"

There is no tax, no type of tax, no practical or theoretical implementation of any taxing model that will increase or decrease a company's ability to compete.

Peddle your LVT theology elsewhere.

 

Pretty much so! Economists are the ones who tend to steer different directions depending on their philosophy. There are economists who are of the capitalist school and there are economists who are of the socialist mold. Neither direction tends to be spearheaded without research and recommendations of economists. The fact is, no school of economics is 100% correct. Some work to spur prosperity for the over all nation or society and some look to what is best for the little guy. Generally I recognize the validity of theory from both sides but I tend to recognize that what is good for the prosperity of the society tends to ultimately be good for the little guy.

Fringe economic theory tends to be very narrow minded and one sighted. For example, Geoists can be correct in that an immature economy can take good advantage of an LVT in that LVT if properly managed makes land use more efficient. But like any other tax system it can be fanaticized and there are many potential disadvantages if not managed properly. Of course it requires that one totally trust the leaders who make the decisions make the right one. My primary objection is, when the wrong decision is made (favoritism toward individuals or groups or areas) it can be destructive of a nations economy. A secondary objection is the attempt to change to an LVT in a mature economy. The disruption of investment dollars can cause an economy to collapse.

Most countries/states/cities have gone to a combination system whereas the land is assessed including improvements as in most property taxes used in the US. In addition, land management has become more of a governmental issue and tax assessments do have a bearing on what the land purpose may be. For example, a large farm which in on land that is ultimately taken over by a municipal limits can be forced out of food production with excessive land taxation in that farm profits are not sufficient to cover the new highest use tax management.

If you have ever been to Germany (most of Europe) you will see very little home development outside of the cities and towns. Even farmers tend to live in the village and commute to their land for work such that the primary purpose of their land is food production or natural production such as tree farms, and they are managed carefully. The reason being is, their total area is small and optimum use of land is critical.

In the US this does not hold true. Our farmers are actually disallowed the right to grow what ever they want in what ever quantity they want such that price supports can keep the market prices sufficient for the farmers to remain profitable and stay afloat. There are myriad other considerations and Geoist groups tend to be very near sighted about the negative aspects of their pet "single tax" proponency.

Then we run into the politics of the issue. LVT was/is considered a way to finance government at all levels by its greatest fans. Herein we run into another major detractor, of which many LVT advocates refuse to admit. The legislative body which initially institutes LVT as the single tax may determine that government needs more revenue. Of course a pure LVT proponent could increases the % of LVT value, but in most cases they go to new types of revenue to satisfy to every growing government which is somehow viewed by politicians as their sole bailiwick. Ad valorem then raises its head and improvements are taxed IAW the value of the improvement. But do you think that will ever be enough for politicians? Likely not, so then they add sales or VAT taxes and like the US did in the early 20th century direct taxes of citizens then came about because all the other forms of taxes were insufficient to take care of constitutionally authorized functions of government and central government wanted more, thus the income tax came about.

Of all the taxes I have studied I personally believe the best/most practical tax is a progressive income tax. Considering that even though LVT enthusiasts claim it causes land management to be the most efficient, it cannot account for variations in human nature and some land owners utilize their land better than others, ergo three is a less than satisfactory distribution of land use maximization, insufficient taxes are collected, us is not the ultimate and (I shudder to think this is a major problem) some speculators used their money to manipulate land markets and production tied to the land. Effectively what I think should be done is ALL REGRESSIVE TAXATION should be eliminated. IE eliminate sales/VAT, property, land, corporate taxes completely and apply a progressive income tax at all levels. That way the ones who ultimately make the most from the infrastructure pay the most to maintain that infrastructure and furnish the revenue needed to fund government.

I would like to see government shrink to constitutionally authorized functions at the federal level and the states and individuals regain their rights as per the 9th and 10th amendments, and I would like to see all services offered by government to individuals be at the state and local levels.

Needless to say this just barely scratches the surface. If there is anything specific you are interested in let me know.

 

I think you and I agree on LVT and as hard as different gov. try to manage land use, someone will beat the system. We have a deal up here where the farm land is protected or that was the intention and the farmer gets a tax break on the land as long as he has a cash crop. The down side of that is that the land value of the family farm do not go up like other land does.So now we have the rich buying up farms for the hobby farm and hugh house and they don't mind paying the extra taxes so really nothing was accomplished.
Back to my point about Economists. As professionals I doubt if their services would not be cheap I would think the Chamber of Comerce would be a way for small business like a mom and pop out fit to get some benifet but how would the poor get the kind of help you could offer them?

 

The Chamber of Commerce can help small businesses and research done by economists and publication of the results and conclusions are certainly available, even at the individual level. However, economics is a field which tends to be either useful at governmental or corporate level. For example, a corporate entity wants to expand to produce products and services in a field such as robotic manufacturing. There are likely to be very diverse consumers who need such things and it is unlikely there will be a concentration in one location. The company wants to make a decision as to where to locate, who to hire, availability of distribution. One company, for whom another member of this forum was an economic consultant, wanted to expand a new line of robotics. After researching the globe he came to the conclusion and recommended the company locate its new facilities in Spain. Several reasons justified that recommendation, one of the most important being the high unemployment in Spain which includes a large number of skilled workers and engineers. In this particular case, the availability of potential employees coupled with relatively high corporate taxes in the US were the deciding factors.

 

See I have a problem with that. If the first job of business is to make money for the shareholder and the governments first job is to get elected and then do the best they can for the whole country, they have to be somewhat inline with big business and their needs, who looks after the little guy?

I grew up in a suburb where you could go pick up a hamburger from a mom and pop shops all over town, each of them had school kids working their way thru collage and when MacDonalds came in they put almost all of them out of business. You can argue that they have kids working too, but now some of that money is leaving our econimy. The small shops bought local meet and bakery and paper good, and the proffit stayed local. It might have been better if we all stayed out of MacDonalds, but no one was evan saying it. So who has the job to look after the little guy.

 

I think we have to recognize that there are ways to corrupt any system. But first we have to recognize who is responsible for the economy and who is responsible for the people, especially since unions are no longer viably taking care of labor, rather elite labor. Business is there to make money for the owners. Business is not inherently a social program, even if some businesses are better at maximizing both profits and their citizenship activities. Government has assumed the role of unions in providing standards for work place safety and conditions and government tends to be the one which manages infrastructure needs of both the business world and the consumer. By and large when the corporate world maximizes prosperity for the whole of society the individual is automatically taken care of. There are caveats to that in so far as non-productive people are basically left out of the prosperity picture and government has virtually usurped the role of private charity so it is now government who must create the safety nets to provide for the needy.

Efficiency of scale is the economic justification for the MacDonalds, Walmarts of the world. Effectively their resources are better managed than the old Mom and Pop operations. The nostalgia of the small town hamburger shop appeals to our sense of good, but it does not address the over all economic status of the nation, the big picture. In the day when Mom and Pop reigned we needed proportionally less to survive, even after adjusting for inflation. Some coop types have survived such as the independently owned IGA markets which use the coop for better pricing, but that cannot be applied below a certain size.

Another issue is how we calculate unemployment. Pre-WWII women tended not to be part of the unemployment statistics as most were homemakers. There were exceptions of course, and there certainly should be no clamor for them to go home. But we do have to recognize that when women went to work in such large %s during WWII and then chose to stay in the labor force, finite labor costs then had to be distributed across a larger portion of our population. I do not see this as a bad thing, only a different thing. Today young people are almost unable to survive in a one worker family.

 

Nobody is requiring them to "purchase the land", if what you meant was exchange value, just to pay its current rental value. If they can't afford it because they don't use it as productively as it would be used by the highest bidder, then they need to find some lower value land, maybe they'll even find some land without any rental value attached to it, or even get some valuable land for free it it's covered by their citizen's divident or universal individual exemption. If their ineptitude or laziness prevents them from doing any of that they just need to find another job and make way for those who can do it.

 

I agree without 1/2 the population working wood make a differnce in the unemployment but that would have slowed inflation and growth and the government and or business does take advantage of inflation so they wouldn't have been in a place to discourage it. In real simple terms we have 2 people working for the price of one.
To your point of government taking the place of unions, then it would be the governments resposibility to make sure some don't take advantage and let safety and regulations slide so more profits can be gained.

 

If you where right, there wouldn't be any farmers who rent their land because they wouldn't be able to compete with the farmers who own their land. But they are able to compete. The wheat of farmers who rent their land is no more expensive than the wheat of farmers who own their land. They just don't get to keep the surplus which the farmers who own their land get to keep. They give it to their landlord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

 

Some big issues of economics are human behaviors and the ultimate good. No system is completely for the "ultimate good." What we have found over the centuries of economic study is, capitalism tends to be the most effective because it creates the most wealth and government can then redistribute some to the less fortunate. I am not a huge fan of redistribution, but there are people who need help and we have a social obligation to give it to them

- - - Updated - - -

True! It has become the government's job over the last half century.

 

In practice, farmers who lease their land tends to have to give 1/2 of any crop they grow to the land owner. It is a very impractical way to farm land and in the US there are very few share croppers any more. LVT in an agrarian economy can work, it just can't do everything the typical geoist wants it to do. Richardo's law of rent does not work in a mature economy. Since supply and demand which are not in equilibrium, market prices assume the majority role in price setting, yet if those market prices do not adequately compensate he who owns/rents the land production tends to go down, the equilibrium gets more unbalanced and there are major problems with price such that fewer people can afford them.

 

Is it a fair statement to say capitilism if not started with slavery, slavery allowed it to grow thru out the world.

 

yes yes, flatscreen tvs were made with zero demand for improved tvs, you're absolutely right.

And, again, you're not answering the question of the thread. Yeah, I want a smaller government too, but if you think all we need to do is f*** up our tax system so badly that we couldn't raise enough revenue to pay for the Marines and the Coast Guard, you're a danger to the stability of our Republic.

 

I disagree. Slavery helped areas which had land which were not sufficiently productive to compete using paid labor in the US. There was little bonafide slavery in Europe during the epoch of slavery in the US yet capitalism started to flourish, as it eventually did in the US post slavery. What had to happen was the change the balance of prices to production such that paid labor created a marketable product or service and there was sufficient demand to justify the endeavor. Slave type labor is generally what transpires in a socialist environment as socialist environments cannot be sustained without very strong/dictatorial government producing a large have not social group with a very small elite group most likely part of the government.

 

In this link you see how people have been trying to stop slavery for 1000 years, so perhaps you want to re-think your last responce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

 

There is no doubt that slavery has existed over the centuries, but what I totally disagree with is the necessity of slavery for a capitalist system.

 

But you have said something to the effect, business has to for what ever will give them an advantage which include cheap labour or available labour or trained labour which ever is needed.

 

No, that is not what I said at all. Obviously some things are not allowed. Cheap labor does not equate to slavery, it tends to either equate to the unskilled, or to immature economies. What I have said is, it is business purpose to maximize wealth. That does not include such practices as slavery or oppression. Bad presumption! Business is not the protector of the rights any more than unions are any more. In our own mature economy that has become the government's job.

 

No it's not the company or the union anymore you said it was up to the government.
Would it be fair to say that labour is a resouce for each country as often, low labour prices attract business to a country much like any other resource.

 

You forgot to add "for doing nothing" at the end of the sentence.

It will eliminate the redistribution of wealth from producers to landowners which our current tax system encourages by not recovering the value of land government spending on infrastructure and services creates. Producers get charged twice.

Yes, it does. In an agrarian economy, you needed access to fertile soil, water, and the community where you can sell your goods to increase your productivity. In our modern economy, you need access to transit, roads, housing, electrical power, the community etc. to increase your productivity. Compare the potential productivity of that land to that of marginal land and you'll see that the law of rent works the same way it has always worked.

Wrong. Market prices simply reflect the demand for land in specific locations. They don't set themselves.

There is no such thing as "land production".

The market price of land is whatever the market CAN afford and no more than that.

 

Yes it does, but normally as business is attracted by low labor the labor market tends to move toward maturity and labor costs tend to go up. That is an essential part of every economic revolution in poor countries. As that occurs their evolving labor force tends to become a large market for goods from other countries and services.

Obviously we can talk about ideal conditions forever, and we aspire to ideal conditions; but the likely hood of ideal conditions is slim to none. What we hope and work for is consistent improvement.

 

Would it be fair to say that labour is a resouce for each country as often, low labour prices attract business to a country much like any other resource
Do you think the US was wrong when they fought for twenty years with Canada over the price of logs?

 

I forgot nothing as most landowners bought their land and that money went into the economy at the market rate.

If our economy was worse case that could happen occasionally, but never on a regular basis.

Market prices are set based on what people are able and willing to pay for a product or service. Land value as described by geoists does not set prices. Consumers do.

There is such a thing as land production when discussion the potential of production on that land. Just one more example of your lack of familiarity of economics.

Willing and able! Get over it.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably! You have a larger supply in Canada and your prices should be lower. I believe in open markets for goods, services and labor.

 

They are able to compete because both the owner of land and the renter take the cost of land into account. When an owner farms land, they have an opportunity cost, even if they aren't paying in cash each month, additionally the money used to buy the land would be bearing interest in the market or some other activity.

 

The Geoists on this thread will never understand what you mean by opportunity costs or accept that money invested in a market is a desirable activity. Their one size fits all tax schemes are in practice not as good as they would have you believe. Some immature markets can use LVTs and others cannot.