out of the box thought on taxes

Do you agree with this one.http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/228125-us-to-impose-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-imports

 

No Land Value Tax:

Farmer A rents an acre of farmland for $250 from landowner X. Farmer B bought an acre of farmland for $5,000 from landowner X.

Full Land Value Tax is implemented:

Farmer B no longer has to pay $5,000 for the farmland to landowner X. With a cap rate of 0.05 and a land value tax of $250 the exchange value of the farmland drops to 0. $5,000 x 0.05 - $250 = 0. Farmer B just like Farmer A simply pays the land value tax of $250 for exclusive use of the land instead of paying $5,000 to landowner X. The fact that you subtract land taxes from expected rental income flow and thus land's exchange value is reduced accordingly is evidence that it cannot be passed on. Farmer A won't pay $500 rent. Farmer B won't pay $10,000 in exchange. Landowner X will just disappear since he can't make money for doing nothing any more. Their costs for the land are unaffected and so are the prices for the wheat they grow (disregarding other taxes).

 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I live in farm country and what you are saying is total hogwash. The farmers around here give the landowners a third or half the crop, and the landowners do nothing for it. I have been on both ends of the spectrum. When I was young we rented most of land which we farmed, we gave a third of the crop in rent. The seed, the equipment, fuel and labor were all provided by us, the landowners contributed nothing, but they got a third of the harvest. Then after giving a third to the landowner for nothing, we had to pay income taxes to the government. The land value tax wouldn't get rid of the rent payment, because now that would go to the government, but it would get rid of the tax payment, and farmers would be better off by at least that amount.

As of now, I no longer farm, but I do own farm land, I get the rents but I do nothing for them. Don't try to tell me that I earn the rents that I get, because I KNOW DARN WELL THAT I DON'T.

 

They own the land. They can just drive their ATVs on it all day, or sell it and invest the money in the market. They are sacrificing its use, so they should be paid for that. If it is so good to buy, why not buy land? Dept of AG will basically buy it for you if these people are legitimate farmers.

Give me the land then. Let me own it. You don't have any money tied up in it obviously it just fell out the sky and in your lap. let me get it. Send it via PM when you get the chance. If not, why not?

Also, this is a system for the 1600s maybe, but why should a poor 5 acre nurseryman in Arkansas pay more in taxes then the guy living in a $3 million penthouse in NY?

 

Where do you get this from? Urban land is far more valuable than farmland and thus the land value tax will be higher on urban land.

Land VALUE Tax. VALUE. VALUE. VALUE. Not acre or area.

I told you that before and it should be clear if you read the thread.

 

We already have that. Do you just want it to be higher then so the federal tax burden on middle class people goes up? Or is this so it pays to keep your house in shabby condition? Build some ugly buildings? What is the point? How do we determine value, by the price the person paid for it last time? So, the more they pay for land the more taxes they get to pay next year? Wont that encourage spreading out which is even more of a waste of land area? If they buy a normal house and store 8 BMWs in the garage, do they have the same tax burden as their family man 9-5 neighbor?

 

I just can't get my head around the wickedness of your thinking. The deer, birds, chipmunks, worms, beavers, and eagles all have an opportunity to provide for themselves. Humans don't have that opportunity, because land titles took that right away from them. Land titles enslave the landless to the landowners, surely you are not stupid enough to not see this. Do you really think that this system of enslavement is going to work in the long term, and that you will really benefit from it? By the last account I know of, a mere 3% of the US population own 95% of the privately owned land. Where I live the large landowners are building mansions, bigger than ever before, while the ordinary town peoples homes are falling apart. Are you really part of that 3% who own almost all of the land, because if you are not, then you are rallying for your own enslavement. If that is the case, then all I can say is enjoy yourself.

 

It won't be any higher than what they already pay landowners either in rent or exchange value (expected future rental income flows).

The land value tax completely disregards the condition of your house. No taxes on it. It will encourage people to build improvements and keep them in good condition.

The land value tax is simply the highest bid somebody offers for exclusive use of a piece of land.

The exchange value of land will completely vanish. The land value tax will be all they have to pay for exclusive use of a piece of land. If there were improvements on it you will be required however to compensate the previous owner or leaseholder of the land.

No, with land speculation completely gone, exchange value of land at 0, and a reduced tax burden on production (including the improvement tax part of the property tax) it will encourage the opposite.

Yes. All that counts is the value of the land that's being occupied.

 

Tell that to the beaver that lost his home so you can have yours.

How do land owners get land?

- - - Updated - - -

So there will be a large incentive to spread out and leave towns and seek big tax breaks? Won't that just be an inefficient use of land and an easy way to dodge taxes?

 

So, let me get this straight. Mitt Romney buys a few acres out in the sticks, and puts a mansion on it, complete with helipad and ferraris etc... And makes big money on his investments, and he pays less in total dollars in taxes then a plumber living in urban queens new York?

 

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is "Why do landowners get paid for land?"

"No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there." - Winston Churchill

No. People will be willing to pay for good locations just like they are paying landowners for them right now. Unlike some people on here, not specifically you, they know that it's better to have a business in the middle of the city than it is to have a business on the outskirts of a city or the middle of nowhere.

 

There are other problems (government created monopolies) to be solved. But if we don't solve the land problem first, then solving those problems won't do any good. I know that you will not read this because it will challenge your beliefs, but if you can humble yourself, here is an explanation of why the land problem must be solved first: http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT25.html#Chapter%2025

As an appeal to authority, just FYI, Albert Einstein read this very book before making this statement:

"Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent love of justice. Every line is written as if for our generation." — Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

But in your fantasies, you are smarter than Einstein … so I am sure you will figure out the faults that Einstein overlooked.

 

- business...so residential land won't be taxed? What about people living out in the sticks in big rolling plantations paying little taxes living large on investment money? No taxes for them?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I like other things about Henry George, but this isn't one of them and times have dramatically changed. You dodged my Romney v plumber scenario.

 

I have no problem with tariffs on illegal dumping.

 

The fallacy in your numbers is they are not realistic. And no land owner would rent a piece of land worth $5,000 for $250 a year. That would be a losing proposition. Basically the rent that should be paid on a $5,000 valued land should be between $500 and $750 a year based on a valid cost to profit system. Land owners are not charity givers to that extent and to turn his land over for that little bit of rent would be cheating the land owner.

 

It doesn't matter what the landowner does so long as he owns the land. Based solely on ownership the landowner is due the value of the rent. If you geoists don't like that arrangement I suggest you don't buy land and rent it out at a loss. 1% per month or 10% to 14% annually is a fair rent for good farm land. Outstanding land is worth more and the farmer who rents it is lucky. In the old days before we eliminated the land barons the farmer would have owed the landowner 50% of his crop, and if the farmer didn't plant he had to leave the land. Wake up and smell the coffee. Everyone deserves a return on his investment whether he is a stock holder or a land owner, period.

- - - Updated - - -

What you people say is clear to understand, just a cockeyed idea if you want to implement it in a mature economy.

 

Open your mind and think for a change instead of spread LVT theology which will work in very limited circumstances only.

 

That is simple! Because he owns it and deserves to get a fair return on the value of his property. Any more smart A questions?

 

Why are people like him rich in the first place? Look at any list of millionaires and you'll see that the vast majority of them are real estate owners. Landowning is what makes them so undeservedly rich in the first place. It's because of the absence of the land value tax. Every single tax dollar you spend on building roads, hospitals, schools, police departments, transit, and whatnot raise the value of land and go directly into their pocket for doing nothing. Then they buy more, and more, and more land and get richer, and richer, and richer without ever making any form of contribution to actual wealth production. Certainly there are other ways people get undeservedly rich through other legal privileges, but landowning is by far the biggest one and needs to be addressed first.

 

Two reasons! He inherited some and he earned a lot more through investments, both of which helped our national economy and there is no valid reason to object except jealousy. Pure envy.

The ability to get rich honestly is one of the driving forces behind any successful economy and the losers are jealous because they were either not smart enough, didn't work hard enough, were not motivated and were insufficiently ambitious.

 

Amen brother Smith. These guys are nothing but jealous. If they are losers it is their own fault.

 

You could say the same for a slave. That's just poor logic. There has got to be another reason someone deserves their money.

False. The mechanism is exactly the same and that Winston Churchill quote explained precisely how all landowners operate and get their income. Why the value of land rises. Zero contribution on part of landowners, as landowners.

All land that people are competing for will carry a land value tax whether it's residential or commercial. The land value tax depends on how desirable it is and whoever wants to compensate the community the most for loss of that opportunity, and for exclusive use for himself, pays the land value tax.

 

Gotcha. So something being private property is a good moral justification for getting a return on an investment. If he bought the license for a slave from the government he deserves to get a fair return on the value of his property, right? Well, if you disagree with that you need to find a better reason for someone deserving to get paid for something. You stick to that logic you essentially justify slavery.

 

So let's see if I understand everything so far.
Labour force can be looked as a resouce just like any other.
Some in a power place have decided that unions have out lived there usefullness,as they don't need the right to talk with a common voice and government takes responsibility for safety and fairness in the work place. (West Texas)
The government and big business understude that moving to a world market would be good for the country overall evan if that ment some on the lower end of scale would be left out and need to be looked after ( Welfare or what ever). So any talk about the poor getting poor is their own fault, is dissingenous at best.
Countrys that undervalue their resources should be punnished with taffifs except for the countrys that undervalue there labour..

 

You missed the entire point. But that was expected. All I did was prove that the tax can't be passed on and that the costs of the farmers don't increase with it. Land value (exchange value) is based on expected future income flows. When you calculate land value, you subtract any land taxes from those expected income flows. Once the tax hits 100% of its rental value, its exchange value drops to zero. That's how it's done in the real world. But, according to you, and some others, in landowner privilege denier fantasy land, since you can pass on the tax, you can just add that tax to expected future income flows, arbitrarily double your land's value, and then sell it to suckers. LOL!