I fail to understand your argument... the vast majority of resources are finite... that being the case... why do you consider land to be so much different than every other resource? Unless of course you don't and you're one of these that feel like all resources should be controlled by the state and this is just your way of getting your foot in the door...
That must be you cannot directly address it. Anything can be considered property if governments enforces your claim to it. You make such weak arguments. Citing the law again, and I'm sure you'd justify the law by citing the law again. It nicely demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of your position, as does the inability to address the issue I identified, or the need to imply I advocated something I didn't advocate.
Everything is in finite supply. Land is in fixed supply. Simply put, land is not a product of labor, land value is publicly created, and having a government enforced monopoly privilege (land title) over it gives the landowner a means of freeloading on other people's actual productivity. I'm not for abolishing exclusive land tenure, just for changing the system a bit to stop the injustice.
Again, you make no sense whatsoever. Additional nonsense. Can you comprehend the right to own real property? Do you follow the law? I'm not morally bankrupt. However, I do force some people into bankruptcy, something like 2-3 per year. They are deadbeats who, when I push back, run for cover. Often times they pay more for an attorney than they would simply paying what they owe. But they are liberals, it comes with the territory.
What I wrote makes logical, moral, and economic sense. I comprehend the legal right to ownership of land as a means to deprive others of their freedom and the fruits of their labor just as I comprehend the legal right to ownership of human beings as a means to deprive them of their freedom and the fruits of their labor when they were still considered property. "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 I do not advocate the law when it is unjust. Good times. Yeah, I'm sure you interviewed them all for their political positions, if they even hold any. Or is that how you lessen their human worth in your mind? Just slap a label on them? Makes it all much easier. The views I hold are vastly different than what you hear from your typical "liberal" anyways, so I'm not sure what your point is. For example, I advocate abolishing the income tax, sales tax, VATs, etc. So whatever it is your trying to do with the liberal this liberal that, you're shooting blanks.
WHAT??? So? So? So? So? So? So? So? No, they aren't. Are you going to tell us that if a government enforced a company's monopoly over the sugar trade within its jurisdiction that would be socialist? Government is always deeply involved in capitalism, rigging markets, handing out monopolies, favors etc. What makes you think they're somehow mutually exclusive? In fact, it's within the definition of capitalism, as for a system to qualify as capitalist ownership of land is needed, which always requires massive state intervention.
That's patently ludicrous. By definition capitalism CANNOT have government intervention. The ONLY government intervention one could argue a capitalist model uses is to REMOVE monopoly... not support it... and even that's not required. WTF are you talking about? capitalism: an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. This system also requires a FREE and fair market. That means NO government intervention. If the government is intervening on behalf of one group or another in the market (outside of busting up a monopoly) it is no longer a free or fair market. Therefore it no longer falls under the definition of capitalist. And capitalism doesn't require government for ownership of land. That's ludicrous. Gov is required in ownership of land in the system we have today but that doesn't mean capitalism requires it. Government intervention is a hallmark of socialism... not capitalism. When you have government intervention you cease to have capitalism... you have some form of socialism.
Greed is a universal human foible. Its redeeming quality is that the assumption of greed makes economiocs fathomable.
The bolded part is what your entire argument is predicated upon and it's completely incorrect. Your assertion that land value has nothing to do with labor and is solely created by the public is absurd.
There are two ways to increase taxes Eliminate deductions so that a person's taxable income increases This is the way Ronald Reagan increased taxes on the middle class Or increase the percentage of taxable income Closing loopholes is increasing taxes
All capitalism requires is private ownership of land and capital. Saying that it necessarily leads to a free and fair markets is bogus propaganda (with regards to land ownership). Yes, it does. Because ownership is defined as A protecting B's right to C against D. That doesn't exist without some form of government. Without government you simply have possession, not ownership. So, the USA has been socialist all along? How dare you...
I don't know what liberals believe, but I do know that the situation we're in today economically points very strongly back at a middle and lower class whose wages have frozen for decades. The greed lies in the fact that corporations across our nation are not paying increasing wages along with increasing profits, yet they've been willing to overly inflate executive wages while freezing all others. That's the notion I disagree with because it harms the working class in a way that eventually harms businesses as demand declines. Without a strong demand from the middle and lower class we end up in a dangerous economic condition that shows through decreased demand, decreased tax revenue for local, state and federal governments, and increased reliance upon government social programs instead of having a strong job market with companies who are able to provide employees with reasonable benefits. The greed aspect comes into play in my mind when employee benefits and wages get slashed while executive compensation packages grow within the same company. That's nothing but greed fostered by a corporate executive board system filled with CEO's from other companies who are perfectly willing to scratch backs as long as theirs too gets scratched. Checks and balances in that system are nearly nil as long as the money comes in, which leaves employees as the largest "burden" on a company and they continue to peck away at pay and benefits while enriching themselves.
I stated true capitalism REQUIRES a free and fair market. Without a free and fair market, you no longer have true capitalism. Period. That's false... again. ownership: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner or possessing something. (depending upon which dictionary you use) If there was no government an individual CAN own property including land. They enforce their OWN right of possession. Regardless... ownership is simply the state of possessing something. That's correct the USA has been socialist for the vast majority of its history. It has instituted socialist policies since its inception. Policies which have been a detriment on the rest of society. Policies that have held back the US from reaching its full potential. Policies that recently have become so costly that it's breaking the back of the capitalist framework which it's built upon. Socialism is a DISEASE.
One of my kids is doing a reseach paper on this very topic. Something like: "Did the Greedy Capitalists deserve their wealth?" My answer: Yes, of course.
Do not put words in my mouth. Read more carefully. Certainly the labor and productive contributions of others around the land, i.e. the public, contribute to land value. Land value comes from three sources: Amenities the public provides, infrastructure and services government provides, and natural advantages nature provides. I don't see the landowner there. Do you?
For you or any other oppressed worker not making enough---find another job, or migrate to some worker's paradise where the socialists will tax your earnings to the point you will have even less to live on.
So-------------------really who is the greedy one? The person that worked very hard 15 or 16 hours a day and established a viable company that makes a lot of money, or a lazy drone the demands gov b'crats give him something for nothing?
Really? So lets say someone purchases a piece of land but the land is nothing but swamp and trees. Now the individual who purchased the land fills the swamp, removes the trees and levels the ground. There's still nothing there but a cleared out, leveled dirt lot. Has the value of that land gone up, gone down or stayed the same?
But capitalism requires private ownership of land, with which you can never have a free and fair market,it'll be inherently rigged, corrupt, and titlted, as the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem so nicely demonstrate. Equivocation fallacy. Ownership: "The ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell, use, give away, or even destroy an item of property. Ownership may be corporeal (title to a tangible object such as a house) or incorporeal (title to an intangible object, such as a copyright, or a right to recover debt). Possession (as in tenancy) does not necessarily mean ownership because it does not automatically transfer title." http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ownership.html#ixzz2nfirxLru That's the sense in which land is owned and the sense I used. Wrong. See above. Holy mother of God. Which is why I'm happy the US never was socialist.
In fact, most of the value beyond simply being there is accomplished by the land owner. Land owners improve their land if for no other reason to increase their own wealth by making the land arable or useful in some manner. When thinking in terms of land, no land has value until occupation is considered, even if that occupation is to put on your boots and go hunting on the land. Additional value can be attributed to the land owner because of taxes he pays which funds the creation of infrastructure. Not only do the taxes paid by one land owner increase the value of his own land when the infrastructure he funded is built, the adjacent land will increase in value as well. The very idea that landowning is somehow wrong is a pipe dream. So to enumerate: 1 Land owning requires taxes be paid 2 Taxes paid fund infrastructure 3 Improvements to land by the owner increases value 4 When the taxes create the infrastructure making the land around attractive enough for others to occupy the taxes will pay for services of the community. 5 If there are trees to be sold, they belong to the land owner and he can use that money to improve his land more. Effectively it can be reasonably asserted that until land is attractive enough to be purchased/occupied with sufficient value on which to pay taxes it has little value at all. The land owner/occupier is the one who gives value to the land.
Again that's wrong. The land rent is true across the entire spectrum regardless of class. If you want to use land, you're expected to purchase or rent it. That still makes the market free and fair. There is no government intervention and it's fair because all are required to participate. Well that's convenient. Use the definition of a word that is used in the context of the system of law. Of COURSE that's the definition of "ownership" in the business dictionary which is describing OUR system of ownership. If you want true ownership in the American system, then it does require LEGAL status to do so. However, that is only true because of the system we use. Titles are not necessary for Ownership outside of the system we use. If the government appropriates resources from one group and gives them to another... on what planet do you think that's capitalist?
If the Henry George theorem was accurate, maybe, but not likely. Ownership is the equivalent to occupation. Both require taxes or the land will revert to the community. The fallacy is the contention that LVT is of any use in a mature economy. There is no effective difference between fee simple ownership with taxes paid and LVT occupation with the taxes paid. Possession does not imply transfer of title, but title of land can be acquired with the proper legal tender paid to the previous owner, to include if the community owned the land.
I'm not part of the group struggling with income, but we're all affected by those who are. When too few people have too much of the pie, demand drops and all businesses are impacted, as are our local governments who provide snow removal, street repairs and other functions we all rely on. Statements like yours are part of the problem. I'm not in the group affected but I fully understand economic impacts and how those impacts affect everyone. Once wealth shifts too far to one small group, only they will have the economic power to generate demand that leads to jobs, and by that point most of us will already be unemployed and will be told, like you just said, that perhaps we should just migrate to some worker's paradise or find another job.
Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/
