Geoists are they nuts or what?

I'm explaining what they are.

Jesus (*)(*)(*)(*)ing christ, a man can't even be educated on the subject at hand over here without being subjected to a witch trial.

 

I don't think you need clarification. You know the superiority of my position. I think you just like to argue … it's fun, if you can win. I am limited on time but I will play along for now.

Yes, and government would assist in this, by collecting all land rent, paying government agencies for the increased rent derived from the services they provide, and returning the remaining rent equally to the citizens. If government provides a service which does not increase land rent, then government gets a spanking (less revenue), same as anyone else who makes a bad investment.

It doesn't because that is too complicated. The landholder is denying 7.5 billion other people from his land on a global scale; 300+million on a U.S. national level. People in New York don't know they want the land I hold … but if government called them up and said: “do you want 1000 acres of land in Yazoo Mississippi for free?” they would say “heck yeah”. Everyone wants land if they can have it on natures terms … which is free. That is where government can come in handy. Government can collect all land rent attributed to nature and distribute it equally among the citizens, at a much lower cost than if each citizen were to hire a lawyer and sue each individual landholder for compensation; which would only make lawyers richer.

The market value of land is what determines how much compensation is appropriate, because that is the most any individual will pay for the privilege of excluding everyone else. If you don't think the market value/compensation is high enough, then offer more compensation and take the land for yourself.

 

How does the government quantify the amount of increased rent derived from the services they provide?

 

That is a good question that I have not thought a lot about. There are a lot of variables when it comes to the natural productivity of land. Some areas can grow fruit and nut trees while other areas can't. Some farmland can produce two crops (rice and wheat) per year, while other land can only produce one crop every other year, due to lack of precipitation. Land near water is usually more productive and natural harbors can add even more value. Local governments would have the incentive to downplay the value of nature while overstating the value of services and infrastructure, so they would have to be left out of the loop as far as calculating the value of nature goes.

Perhaps a map would be made, zoned with the advantages listed above, and a value placed upon those advantages. Population density could give a clue to the natural productivity of land, because people tend to crowd into areas where nature is more hospitable – but land value taxation might reduce that tendency somewhat. We do know that when people settle land they settle the best land first, so a map could be made accordingly, with the land that was settled first showing the greatest natural advantages. I know that my ideas are a bit arbitrary … do you have a good idea of how the value of nature can be calculated? Put your thinking cap on … I'm all ears.

 

I don't need to be educated. I know what they are. I just don't agree with your point of view. Is it a requirement that everyone agree with you? A "witch trial?" A tad paranoid aren't you? Are you incapable of understanding that not everyone who disagrees with your view of things is somehow evil? Here's a fact: many people think socialism is a good system -- many people don't. I respect your opinion, but your condescending "you disagree with me and you are therefore wrong," or on a witch hunt is really unbecoming. Have a good day.

 

I'm not asking about the natural productivity of the land. I want to know the government would quantify the amount of rent derived from the services they provide, as opposed to amount of rent derived from the services that other people in the vicinity provide. How do they know who gets what amount of rent?

 

Well that is much easier to answer because the government gets it all. Only the value of nature needs to be striped out – so it can be paid out as compensation to those who get fewer of natures advantages.

Privately supplied amenities that increase surrounding land rent is not a geoist specific problem … as these positive externalities exist in all systems. The system you advocate just stuffs that increased land rent into the pockets of nearby landowners, even if they are lazy slobs who won't even mow their dandelion infested lawn. At least under the geoist system the government gets it and can provide better roads and such, which makes more sense than just giving it to the neighbors.

 

I see, so the government gets all the land rents, even those due to infrastructure created by private entities.

How surprising.

 

Just be sure to remember that land rent excludes capital improvements. If you build a road on land you hold you will not be taxed for the value of the road. Geoism may not be a perfect system but it is better than the alternatives. Taxing trade -- like you want -- just creates all those dead-weight losses, yuck!

 

I'm reacting like this because you're giving me unnecessary hostility for explaining background information. I'm not arguing the merits of the ideologies right now, but you saw it fit to angrily rant at me anyway. Can you see where I'm coming from?

 

I don't want to tax trade. Taxation is a violation of property rights.

 

The same can be said about capitalism. Capitalism continually pushes the lower classes to the brink of starvation – regardless of how hard they work or how much they produce – and that is why capitalism always has to have a welfare system to put off revolution.

Geoism would do better as it doesn't allow taxation of wages and trade, and it cuts out the parasites.

 

I'm pretty sure that you posted on another thread that you would favor going back to tariffs to fund government. I don't feel like searching for the post. If not then my apologies.

 

I prefer that to an income tax, yes.

My highest preference would be not to tax trade at all, as it is a violation of property rights.

 

No. Geoism is all about people keeping what they produce by their labor (all of it). A geoist believes we should share the world (land/natural resouces), but that people have full rights to what they produce by their labor. Geoism is against government giving anyone advantages over others, or in other words, we are against privilege.

 

Government is by defintion parasitic so no you don't get rid of any parasites and there is no tax that does not ultmiately effect trade in some way.

 

So, when a landowner gets publicly created land rent for contributing absolutely nothing to the economy and has no legal obligation to satisfy any but his own desires, then that is being a productive member of society, but when government recovers publicly created land rent and has schools, water dams, sewer systems, streets, or public transportation financed by it, then that somehow is parasitic.

 

Yep. If that was all government did with it's money the relationship would be more nearly symbiotic. Unfortunately in the Us the government does far more than that, and damn little of it strictly speaking constitutional.

 

Land rent is not publically created and nine times in ten in the US the person who owns the land also owns the structures upon it. Hence any land rent is owed to himself.

 

I don't think they're nuts, but I don't think they're seeing the big picture. Some of them promote a land value tax system, which would be a nightmare for the truly poor, although they present it as a benefit. Go figure.

I think it's a case of their hearts being in the right place but not a lot of logic is involved. More of a "wishes and dreams" fantasy utopia that would - in reality - create unrest and anger.

 

You are just making things up. Government does create value and the only reason government needs to collect taxes is because our legal system prevents government from collecting the land rent that its activities create. Roads are an obvious example of government creating land value. Land near high quality public roads can be 50 times more valuable than otherwise near identical land just a few miles away from them.

I suppose that parasites will always exist. But legal privilege is what makes the parasites dangerous to society, and geoism advocates for the removal of legal privileges.

So says you. The Nobel prize winning economist Paul Samuelson says different:

"The striking result is that a tax on rent will lead to no distortions or economic inefficiencies. Why not? Because a tax on pure economic rent does not change anyone's economic behavior. Demanders are unaffected because their price is unchanged. The behavior of suppliers is unaffected because the supply of land is fixed and cannot react. Hence, the economy operates after the tax exactly as it did before the tax—with no distortions or inefficiencies arising as a result of the land tax." – Paul Samuelson

 

Land rent has nothing to do with structures. You are confusing the common usage of the word rent with the economic meaning of the word … we are using the word *rent* as it is defined in economic terms.

See this short tutorial (click on the links to move through the pages): http://www.henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm

 

Take a few minutes and read this open letter which was sent to Mikhail Gorbachev, a letter signed by four Nobel prize winning economists, as well as economics professors from the most respected Universities in the world (a letter which was written to prevent unrest and anger): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_%281990%29

 

I completely disagree with geoism, it's an entirely unworkable system, but how do you suggest funding the government if you are against taxation entirely?

 

Well, I maintain that the geoist system provides greater freedom then the system you advocate for.

Some people want a large government while others do not. Unlike your preferred system, geoism allows those who want large government to have what they want, while allowing people who want small government to get what they want. All you have to do is move to a community (with thousands to choose from) which suit your desired level of government services, and tax rates which correspond to that size of government. Under geoism you can move to New York City and have big government and high taxes, or you can move to a small community in Nebraska and have small government and small taxes (possibly even no taxes). Geoism lets people choose how much government and taxation they have in their life.