Re: Income from a tax on land.

From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:22:39 -0800

imouttahere@mac.com wrote:

> jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
>> imouttahere@mac.com writes:
>>
>> > jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
>> . . .
>> > > Without that ownership they [LVT advocates] are either simply
> advocating
>> > > teh theft or ous of force when suggesting that a refusal
>> > > to pay the LVT will result in the eviction from the
>> > > property.
>> >
>> > Where in one's property deed or in the law does it say you are
> exempt
>> > from taxes? This is an honest question.
>>
>> That's not the claim or the point being made, honest
>> question or not. Currently real estate taxes are fairly
>> constant and increases and decreases in value compensated
>> by mil rate adjustments.
>
> Yes. Constancy is a valuable attribute for a tax regime.

Yes! The tax must be consistent and reasonably constant as a
RATE.
 
>> The goal is to produce a reasonable
>> steady income to pay for reasonably steady costs of governemnt.
>> In this world (ignoring all the issues able legitimacy)
>> taxes are a liability that must be paid and, like any
>> other debt, failure to make good allows for the creditor
>> to seek redress by seizing other assets. Typically
>> home is deemed off bounds but not totally safe.
>>
>> The LVT approach explicitly puts one's land and home
>> at risk.
>
> Not necessarily. There can be all kinds of rollbacks for the primary
> residence property.

This is not necessary if the rate is constant within the domain of the
taxing authority. The Widow Jones will not be taxed out of her home
unless it is in an inappropriate place that should support a shopping
mall. In that case, the Widow
Jones needs to be relocated at community expense. The typical home
owner would be net positive from the reduction of other taxes that
goes along with the rise of land tax rates.

>> Why? Beacuse the LVT advocate claim the
>> person cannot own the property and owes whatever
>> implied rent the land could earn be paid in the
>> form an LVT. It doesn't matter if the person is
>> or is not actually collecting that rent--they
>> still "owe it to the community".
>
> I think even in a fully Georgist system primary residence tax rates
> need not look too much different than today. A gentle split-rate can do
> wonders.
>
> The goal is not to hammer every down the the mean, but to lessen land
> hoarding/speculation. Really, residential neighborhoods are pretty much
> fixed as far as density goes, so I do question the need to apply the
> LVT regime to single-family housing in existing urban residential
> neighborhoods.

NO need for any speacial treatment with the exception of disablity
(age for instance).

> Being a statist I'd be perfectly happy with zoning authorities planning
> development and using LVT as tool (and club if necessary).

Zoning is good.

>> > > They don't say they will prevent the "owner"
>> > > or "occupant" from engaging in activities that will
>> > > result in the capture of rents but leave that person
>> > > still using the land for their personal use.
>> > >
>> > > If there is no ownership of land how can anyone
>> > > rightfully interfer with antoher's use of the
>> > > land? Or is the proposition that, since there
>> > > is no ownership there is no such thing as
>> > > interferring with another's use merely a
>> > > suboptimal joint usage of the land?
>> >
>> > The root of the question is taxation. Until the state fades away
>>
>> Then you need to be talking with someone else
>> because I've only been inolved with this debate
>> from the perspective or the moral claims and
>> the issue of land ownership.
>
> Your questions are important. Apologies for the short shrifting.
>
> The great majority of people are just trying to get by in this world.
> They're getting screwed by a rentier class with highly disproportional
> assets and advantages.
>
> I am not such a purist to insist that everyone in the world should
> immediately jump into the Georgist egalitarian utopia. But there's some
> very low hanging fruit wrt commercial and single family rental
> properties -- I consider buy-to-let an immense evil and think slapping
> the LVT on this would be quite salutary. I haven't seen any real-world
> proposals of LVT, my goal here is to develop my thinking and figure out
> if this thing actually makes sense or not.

Stay tuned..... 

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson.  http://GreaterVoice.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... If the LVT was implemented right people like Chevron ... >well as the value of the unimproved land. ... >and taxes for the common people. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Latvia Advised to Tax Land Values
    ... inflated property then property tax them to oblivion ... If you want land more affordable and taxes more equitable, you want LVT. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: query regarding Georgist assertion
    ... value promote the common good more than taxes on land values. ... LVT actually makes a lot of sense if you understand that it have to be kept ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: What the LVT is, and what its advantages are - must read
    ... tax systems being by far *the worst* at this, ... you are simply calling what is not LVT LVT. ... public land. ... LVT in Hong Kong is a constantly told huge Georgist success ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... >>>Plus it needs to be said that even with full LVT, ... No. Remember, people only bid up land if it is a source of profit, ... but most owners just have an average plot of earth in their ... I'm not a lawyer, nor a CA resident, so I don't ...
    (sci.econ)