Is Taxation Theft?

Bah Humbug!

 

The difference is, when I say Bah Humbug, it is in response to some irrelevant comment. You are simply dismissing factual argument. None of you, not one of you who spout georgist propaganda understand the implication of what you are saying. All you have is some vague idea that there is some magical property of georgism which would improve your lot. There isn't, and it won't.

And I even agree with Andrew Carnigie's quote.

 

Bah Humbug!

 

You are still misusing the term Bah Humbug! It must be presumed you have nothing useful to say (that has been a factual issue all along. You have nothing useful to say. Neither did your ignorant friend Roy who I note has been eliminated again.)

 

Law isn't the justification for land titles, it's the mechanism by which the people of this country expressed a choice. The justification for land titles is the same as the justification for driving on the right side of the road — it's the system we chose for ourselves.



​

 

So are taxes to pay for a social insurance and safety net system.



​

[/QUOTE]

 

Yes! We choose to pay FICA, because it gives us a fall back position in the event our savings and our job fixed benefit system does not serve us well.

Which brings us to the point, why does our job fixed benefit system does not serve us? Because we as a fickle labor system have chose not to be loyal to our company long enough to take good advantage of that system.

 

Because companies are so loyal to us.

 

It is my opinion from study and experience that companies have been every bit as loyal to workers and workers have been to companies. The government may be one of the culprits here by changing retirement situations giving workers the right to create retirement accounts not part of the worker employer relationship, making it easier for the individual to move on a whim, but also giving companies and out in providing standard pension responsibilities. Unions didn't help with their pension programs by making a pension related to the Union and not the company. There is a lot of blame to go around. But the beginning of the end came when unions sued the big 3 auto makers for denying the right to park a foreign care in their parking lots. Not only did labor not have any loyalty to their company, they had no loyalty to US products.

 

In my study and experience most companies have no problem laying off as many employees as they feel like to maintain their bottom line.

Company loyalty is a fairy tale.

 

Very good post
If a person is too selfish and greedy and unpatriotic That they somehow resent financially supporting their country
They should move to another country

 

No company executive has the right to carry dead weight. That said, Company loyalty was a two way street. I would wager that more people left companies for another job than were released because they were no longer needed.

 

I have lived in 2 Asian Countries and 4 European countries, and all have tax, most have more than us, so I join you in wishing them good luck

 

Technically, yes, it is.

 

Taxation strictly related to enumerated powers expressed in a constitution that reflects strong private property and contract rights and heavy restraints on takings (not as expanded by perversion of a necessary and proper clause, nor of illlegitimate executive branch growth and quasi legislation, nor of judicial quasi legislation) is legitimate. By my casual estimation, this makes about 80% of the taxes we pay including all of SS/medicare equivalent to theft.

 

The fact is, Georgism is one big delusion.

The Henry George Theorem, named for 19th century U.S. political economist and activist Henry George, states that under certain ideal conditions, aggregate spending by government will be equal to aggregate rent based on land value (land rent)​

In the real world obviously those CERTAIN IDEAL CONDITIONS have never been met, because, there has never been a successful long term LVT experiment which accomplished what Henry George proposed, NEVER.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I see your brainless non sequitur responses to reason, so back at you.

 

Quote Originally Posted by dnsmith View Post
The more I read about Georgism, the more obvious it is that those who have advocated LVT on this forum are much more militant against private ownership than was George. It is obvious that in a situation in which land titles had not already been granted, George wanted the land to be commonly owned with all of the people getting benefit from rents on the land. But it is important to note that he had alternative issues with land which already become privately owned.

He believed there was an important distinction between common and collective property. Although equal rights to land could be achieved by nationalizing land and then leasing it to private parties, George preferred taxing unimproved land value. A land value tax would not overly penalize those who had already bought and improved land, and would also be less disruptive and controversial in a country where land titles have already been granted.

He (George) did not actively assert the need to confiscate land without compensation. Another interesting component of his theory is the desire to use commonly owned land to more universally control populations; apparently to keep the demand for land from being high in one location and low in others.

"This would be a tax on the annual value of land held as private property. It would be high enough to allow for all other taxes—especially upon labor and production—to be abolished."

It becomes more and more likely that the idea of a single tax on the value of land is specified such that it can not serve all of the revenue requirements of all levels of government. By necessity that would not free people from multiple taxation but since the revenue that can be raised by LVT alone would necessarily limit the size of government such that it did not exceed those revenues it will never happen in a US redistribution of wealth country. That is the most attractive element of Georgism. But, how to shrink the size of government to fit the revenue? Over time he believed that his concepts would reduce poverty eliminating one of the huge parts of government business. He also did not address a common defense.

In almost all of the discussion by George, it relates to the building of a community, as if a new entity with occupants of that community coming as if second thought. Under that scenario, the planning and building of a community with the infrastructure build in ready to serve the people who come to reside in that community. In that case it would be the community building he value of the land by making it useful and ready for production and transportation of goods produced.

Unfortunately that is not how most communities come about. At the inception of most communities the people came first, settled the land, built the trails, soon the roads as the wagons traveled the trails and it attracted other people as there was safety in numbers. As the people settled the land and the community formed the landowners payed taxes and the community developed even more infrastructure. In this case the value of the land was created by the settlers not the community.

As most communities grow, developers subdivide, build homes and stores and places of business and industry. Usually the developer builds the basic infrastructure along with the development with the service companies (electric, gas, water) further provide for the distribution of their services and charge fees which cover the cost of developing the distribution and to pay for the services received. Those service companies may be private or civil government entities.

Recently another member of this forum posted 12 requirements for LVT to be introduced into an area which has already been settled. I added the 13th.

1. The current landowner must be reimbursed for his investment costs and potential.
2. The reason and means to acquire the land meets strict judicial guidelines.
3. The community is restrained from charging an LVT % higher for one occupier than another with land value being similar.
4. Land management tools must meet the same stringent judicial guidelines as eminent domain.
5. Subsequent community leaders are refrained from changing the rules based on their particular preference or expectation for tax value.
6. Leasehold is automatically renewed with out any new restrictions.
7. Land occupiers are completely protected from confiscatory taxation.
8. As land values increase taxes cannot be raised beyond the same % as the inflated value of land.
9 Land tenure is absolute exclusive providing taxes are paid.
10. There are no other state or municipal required for the land occupier
11. Fair rents can be charged to anyone wishing to occupy the land by agreement with the lease freehold owner..
12. The right to sell the lease hold rights at the discretion of the current lease holder.
13. Minimum alternative tax to keep the very rich who do not own land from skating on taxes.

In reading George's "Progress and Poverty"I have found nothing which will preclude the incorporation of those requirements.
I think it is time for the LVT proponents on the forum to learn about that which they propose.

The Henry George Theorem, named for 19th century U.S. political economist and activist Henry George, states that under certain ideal conditions, aggregate spending by government will be equal to aggregate rent based on land value (land rent).

In 1977, Joseph Stiglitz showed that under certain conditions, spending by the government on public goods will increase aggregate land rents by an equal amount.

The same can be said for property tax properly assessed and calculated. How often will those specific unique situations occur to make LVT practical? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

No it is not theft, as The Constitution grants Congress the power of tax. Article 1 section 8 I believe. No amendment is needed, unless you want to abolish taxes

 

Great post. Corporatism is American-Fascism. It's Fascism-lite.

Much more related to the Progressive era than most modern progressives would like to admit.

 

Yes, I am an embarrassment. I embarrass your understanding of economics and taxation every time I respond to one of your less than intelligent posts. You don't even understand the system you yourself tout. At least try to understand LVT instead of spouting all of the garbage Roy taught you. He was wrong, and you are wrong.

 

Why do you suppose it was dubbed the "Henry George" Theorem by other economists after it was finished? Because it mathematically proved him right, DUH!!!!!

Half of your conclusions aren't even logically related to where you pretend to derive them from. "Certain ideal conditions" refers to government spending being efficient. Government spending isn't always efficient. For example, If government spending is wasteful, if a politician spends tax revenue on an overseas hooker while he's on vacation, for example, it won't make locations more desirable to live at and thus won't show up as land rent.

And you derive some nonsensical unrelated conclusions from that. It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiotic and you're just not worth the time any more.

 

As much as some thought they have proved him right by what they thought to be truisms, they all failed. Yes, it is CALLED a theorem, it is not in fact a valid one.

I never pretend anything. And if I post it you can bank it.

I am sure it does have something to do with government spending being efficient. It also has to do with the economic system and the supply and demand issues of that system.

 

You're quite the dreamer. All the Henry George Theorem shows is that efficient government spending shows up as land rent.

That's in fact a POSITIVE. It means that the only way to raise revenue for government as far as the LVT system is efficient spending.

Non efficient spending = less revenue for the government from LVT. Government wants revenue, government needs to spend the tax revenue efficiently.

Get it?

 

IF THE CONDITIONS ARE IDEAL.

ONLY IF THE CONDITIONS ARE IDEAL.

That has never occurred in the history of mankind. Do you expect it to change any time soon? And since LVT can't force efficient spending why do you like it so much?

Try applying that "efficient spending" to the US government, I dare you.

I have always got it. LVT as a single tax cannot force efficient spending, it does not raise enough revenue for all levels of government such that all the other taxes can be eliminated, thus it will never be effectve.

Even in your sock puppet Roy's best day, when he gave HONG KONG as an example of LVT as a successful system, blew it because LVT only raises 40% OF THE CITY REVENUE. Even a local LVT has failed miserably to succeed even without national taxes being considered. In Hong Kong personal income tax runs 15% and corporate tax 16.5% because LVT does not even cover needed LOCAL REVENUE.

In conclusion, since you won't be reading my posts anymore, Georgism needs so many variables to be ideal for it to function, and one of the most important variable is efficient government spending, it is not nor will it ever be a viable system of taxation.

 

Taxes are a membership fee. Membership has it's privileges. Be a member of your country. Or find another country to be a member of. Relying on some crusader of awesomeness to come and do the things we take for granted by the government in the private sector is like waiting for a bus in the middle of sand dunes. Maybe one might get lost and pick you up, likely not, though. And when it does, it'll probably charge you more than you can afford for fare.