out of the box thought on taxes

Oh, you mean the people who work the hardest, make the most money, create the country's prosperity and pay the most taxes so the little conspiracy theory leeches can get the share they want? Right.

 

There are some positive aspects of the Georgian theory. Most of them apply to an undeveloped and immature country/economy.

The biggest issue with the application of a strict LVT in a developed economy is the concept that even those who paid for land for what ever reason, to include speculation, can lose their land to the community.

Another issue is the fact that not all land is equal in use factors with or without the infrastructure furnished by society/government.

The issue of a poor man who finds himself in possession of land which has an LVT associated with it puts taxes in those circumstances to be regressive.

There are too many pit falls to changing tax system so drastically, especially when one of the primary purposes is to dispossess what is thought to be the parasitic control of land by rich and oppressive land owners; a situation which does not exist whole sale in the US.

So far none of the proponents of a "single tax system" or LVT have adequately discussed a reasonable means to address the problems an LVT would have in a mature economy such as that of the US.

In addition, no one has addressed the fact that even if enacted and changed there is no way to stop an oppressive government from creating additional taxes making business completely unable to make an adequate profit such that our economy does not collapse.

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC REPLY >>>



Having participated in some debates on here, in real life, and other forums, I can only understand Roy's frustration. There is literally a script out there with the same arguments over, and over, and over again. And it's always fallacious arguments that start flowing like a river because nothing sticks.

I glanced over what Rothbard wrote on the last page and the first part I saw after scrolling up was something about the landowner allocating it to the most productive use. If I'm a landowner, I don't care who uses it productively. I'll give it to whoever bids the most. That's all the landowner does obviously. After that I knew it's not worth bothering with. This issue tends to completely remove reason from people's heads.

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: DELETE OFF TOPIC REPLY >>>







I glanced over what Rothbard wrote on the last page and the first part I saw after scrolling up was something about the landowner allocating it to the most productive use. If I'm a landowner, I don't care who uses it productively. I'll give it to whoever bids the most. That's all the landowner does obviously. After that I knew it's not worth bothering with. This issue tends to completely remove reason from people's heads.[/QUOTE]Rothbard is a well known and widely renowned economists who understands the problems Georgism can cause. No land owner worth his salt chooses not to maximize the productivity of his land. That is the biggest mistake you, roy and others like you make. The existence of ruthless and oppressive land owners as a % of land owners is miniscule and most speculators ultimately do more to improve a society's prosperity than you give them credit for doing. Those debaters who are frustrated because they can't convince people that their one size fits all single tax system are frustrated because they are wrong and won't admit it.

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>

Marx and George were contemporaries, and knew each other's work. Marx himself called George's plan, "capitalism's last ditch," and said George was "completely backward." George considered Marx, "the prince of muddle-heads."

No, you have not. All geoists know that the entire physical universe is divided into people, the products of their labor, and land. They know that land is a product of natural processes (or, as some believe, of divine creation), but that nothing, repeat, NOTHING is ever a "product of land."

Wrong. Natural resources cannot rightly be owned. However, a geoist might have said "equally owned by all" to mean that all have equal rights to use them.

No geoist has ever said that.

Nope. There is no geoist "sect" that is unaware of the difference between natural resources and products of labor. That conflation is exclusively the province of Marxists and capitalists.

Wrong. It has never been refuted, nor even honestly disputed.

If you want to read some stupid, evil, dishonest garbage. The explicitly evil, dishonest, anti-liberty, anti-justice, and anti-reason Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the logical and ideological successor to Murray Rothbard.

If you want a longer sample of my evisceration of Rothbard, see this:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.econ/2007-05/msg00098.html

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: EDIT FLAMEBAIT/INSULT >>>

 

Then why don't they just do that now?

<crickets>

LVT is not based on the "needs" of government. It is strictly the market price for the advantages government, the community and nature provide.

It has been known for decades that LVT will not and cannot encourage sprawl, because it encourages -- indeed, almost requires -- intensity of improvements and use proportional to value.

 

Oh, the productive land speculators. What would we do without them providing us with so much land which would vanish into thin air if they had never existed.

 

Flat false. The property tax is among the most progressive of all taxes, because the land portion cannot be passed on to tenants, and the improvements portion, which is partially passed on, tends to be lower for the poor because they live in old buildings, not new ones.

But as I just proved above, property taxes bear only very slightly on the roof over our heads.

Already disproved. The land value portion of property taxes cannot be passed on to tenants, and the improvements portion is less (often almost nothing) for the poor.

Yes, it does, because the land value portion can't be passed on.

Flat false, as proved above. And ability to pay is not measured by income, but by assets or net worth.

 

Any tax which cannot be passed on to the consumer or labor and precludes the business from making adequate profits will cause the business to fail. Taxes are ALWAYS added to the price of goods or services in one way or another.

 

I agree we need public funding of election campaigns. We pay trillions for the DoD to safeguard our democracy against external threats, but won't commit a tiny fraction of that to safeguarding it against domestic usurpation by wealthy, privileged interests.

 

geofree, Armor for Sleep and I.

That is false. No such refutations have been advanced. All objections have been demolished, including Murray Rothbard's.

We have proved that LVT will make business more competitive by relieving producers of the need to support idle landowners.

And competition. Correct.

 

I like the way you put it, "Tax theology." In fact the most fallacious part of the Goeist's argument is the assumption that land owners tend to be oppressive or greedy. Maybe 100 years ago, but in a mature society that kind of land owner tends to be wiped out by proper competition. Their claims to have refuted Rothbard is just so much hot air. Not a one of them is smart enough to refute Yogi Bear based on what they have written so far.

 

There are no refutations in that quote. There are only statements of belief with no supporting evidence or theory.

I have as well, in multiple forums and at a myriad of levels. Never have I "understood" such frustration. I simply do not bother with those folks. The irony is that Roy has fallen into the same script of irrationality (or perhaps, he always have been- I don't know since I do not know him/her that well). He offers fallacious arguments and just curses and proffers no counterpoint

And that is why you actually need to ready the works that I provided for you- you have no understanding of Rothbards criticisms of Georgian theory. Here is a less legnthy passage to get you started:

The Single Tax: Economic and Moral Implications

But you really should read the other two examples of Rothbard's work first, so that you can understand the foundation on which this passage is built.

 

The only business LVT can prevent from making "adequate profits" is the landowning "business," and society will be better off without it.

Nope. Already disproved. LVT simply redirects to government and the community the producer's payment of an existing cost that would otherwise be pocketed by the landowner for doing nothing.

 

You have stated it, you have shouted it, you have even cursed about it, but rest assured, you have not disproved that or anything else; and the very idea that you have annihilated Rothbard is laughable bull****.

 

nonce again, not that it matters. because when it comes to theology no amount of proof is enough.

"The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 4), otherwise known as the Smoot&#8211;Hawley Tariff or Hawley&#8211;Smoot Tariff,[1] was an act sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

The overall level of tariffs under the act were the highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828.[3] The act, and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners, reduced American exports and imports by more than half. Economists agree that the Smoot&#8211;Hawley Tariff Act increased the severity of the Great Depression.[4]"

Protective tariffs do not increase a company's ability to compete. Having better products, produced more efficiently, delivered more efficiently, and sold at a fair price are the tools that increase a company's competitiveness.

the discussion is not about how to provide government revenues but about how to use taxes to make companies more competitive. LVT do not serve to make companies more, or less competitive. The price of a commodity is set by supply and demand. It is not at all influenced by the amount of property taxes a company may or may not pay. Lowering a companies property taxes will not cause them to lower prices and raising those taxes will not allow a company to raise prices in the face of lower priced competition.

whatever argument your theology thinks it is making fails miserably at first glance.

 

Don't forget, no matter how much supply there is, or how much demand pressures the supply, unless the business does makes a profit the product ceases to be made and so no amount of demand will cause the product to be made and distributed UNLESS all costs to include taxation are recovered by the business.

 

Rent seeking is oppressive and greedy by definition.

False. There is no competition in the land market, as supply is fixed. That is why land is a canonical example of monopoly. Rent is the result of competition by prospective land users for the fixed available supply of land.

I annihilated him with irrefutable fact and incontrovertible logic. You know this. That is why you or one of your pals had to get falena to delete my post. But speaking of hot air...

LOL! I have comprehensively and conclusively demolished both you and Murray Rothbard; you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

 

Land has ceased to be made in any case, and nothing can ever increase the supply, no matter how high the price. Likewise, no matter how high the tax, land will still be there, in fixed supply, just as it always has been.

You will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing those facts.

 

None of which is relevant to all of the good economic comments which have proved that you still cannot apply what little of economics you think you know to the general prosperity of a mature economy.

 

You know that is false. I identified indisputable facts that prove Rothbard was lying. That is why you and your pals had to get falena to delete my post.

That is a bald fabrication, and you know it.

And you have always been comprehensively and conclusively refuted by the geoists.

Only apologists for privilege, greed, injustice and evil are unacquainted with it.

That is a fabrication and you know it. I identified the indisputable facts of objective physical reality that proved Rothbard both wrong and a liar.

He understands them better than you or Rothbard, whose "criticisms" of geoist theory I have demolished utterly.

Which I have already demolished. See the link in post #530 for the first section. There were two more sections where I continued my comprehensive evisceration of Rothbard's cretinous article at tedious length, but I haven't been able to find them on the Net.

No, I have utterly and conclusively demolished Rothbard's despicably dishonest anti-geoist screed, and you have no answers. Simple.

 

No, you have not. Your imagination is getting the better of you.

 

Fabrication. I have proved both you and Rothbard wrong with self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality. They are merely facts that you have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

- - - Updated - - -

"Denial ain't just a river in Africa." -- Mark Twain

 

<yawn> You cannot alter facts of objective physical reality by calling them, "theology," sorry.

Your refusal to know the fact that LVT does exactly what the OP asked cannot erase the fact.

It definitely makes them more competitive, by relieving them of the need to support parasitic landowners.

False. When real estate improvements are taxed, it discourages investment in them, leading to reduced production AND THUS REDUCED SUPPLY AND HIGHER PRICE of the goods and services that would have been produced using those improvements. Colbert, Louis XIV's finance minister, deindustrialized France in the 17th and 18th C by taxing capital goods, including factory buildings and fixed equipment.

You're not even talking about the relevant point, which is the REDUCTION OF PRODUCTION COSTS that LVT makes possible, by relieving the productive of the burden of supporting parasitic landowners.

See above. It is your refusal even to consider the relevant facts that fails miserably at first glance.

 

1. You mean to ask why, if I quoted someone earlier, they aren't saying what I quoted again.? Are these crickets in your brain? popcorn:
2. If LVT can't provide enough taxes for the government to operate, then your answer to the question is no better than 'no taxes.' But you were never answering the op to begin with, just ranting as always.
3. There are two main kinds of land taxes - a flat land tax (paid per acre), and LVT (paid by assessed value of the land). Unfortunately, what you fail to realize is that the assessed value of the land is almost exclusively determined by it's refinement (improvements on the land itself) and improvements in general built around it. BECAUSE the assessed land value is higher in urban areas, the LVT will tax land in densely populated areas more heavily, encouraging urban sprawl. It's okay - no one actually expected you to understand what you advocate.