Taxation: The good, the bad and the ugly.

Taken from “India after Gandhi,” by the well-known Indian historian and writer Ramachandra Guha. The resettlement program was referred to as re-Colonization.

One such remarkable example dates back to late 1940s when the Indian subcontinent was partitioned. Two nations, India and Pakistan, were formed as a result of the parti(*)tion; both simultaneously gained their independence from Britain. Overnight, immediately after inde(*)pendence, Pakistan emerged as a Muslim-majority nation, while Hin(*)dus were the majority in India. The sudden insecurity of minorities in the two countries prompted mass migrations. Millions of Hindus and Sikhs who found themselves in Pak(*)istan left for India, while similarly large numbers of Muslims in India left for Pakistan. To this day, the aftermath of the Partition – which unleashed a spate of violence,rioting and the loss of cher(*)ished ancestral homes – continues to haunt the two nations.

What is less known, however, is the effort that went into resettling the displaced peoples who were now landless refugees. One of the largest cross border migrations in human history inevitably became the largest resettlement operation in the world.How was this monumental task accomplished? And how was operations research involved? There’s a glimpse of this in a chapter of the book “India after Gandhi,” by the well-known Indian historian and writer Ramachandra Guha.​

Since the refugee farmers had left behind more land than they now inherited, every claim had to be taxed. The higher the claim,the more it was taxed.For the first 10 acres, the cut was 25 percent; between 10 and 30 acres, 30 percent; and so on. If the claim was more than 500 acres, a whopping 95 per¬cent was taxed. ( Hari J. Balasubramanian) ​

In other words the land was taxed, but the people had no money so it was never collected to any extent. My father helped the Indian government create a cadre of agriculture extension agents to help these refugees to learn to farm effectively and I spent several months working on one such colonization project.

 

After doing searches based on the quotes posted by dnsmith, it is obvious that you are incorrect about several things. a. there was a resettlement/colonization of people from Pakistan who fled to India. and b. it is obvious as well that the land on which those refugees were settled were taxed, and in some cases drastically.

I find it difficult to understand even when shown concrete support for a situation you still find it necessary to deny the facts and call another dishonest.

 

Amen brother!

 

Thanks for the link reminder. I had forgotten where I had read that.

 

dnsmith said, "As Richard Carey quite correctly says. a land tax is an idea whose time came and went long ago."

Interesting that you laugh like a jackass about dnsmith quoting Richard Carey, as if there was something wrong about it. I agree with his post, and note that you really have no point at all.

 

The point is that your buddy copy and pasted posts from the comments section of another website from different users. Just slightly altered. Duh. Can't believe that went past you.

 

He's absolutely correct.

And? What's your point?

There was no land value tax.

He found concrete support that he is wrong and that there was no land value tax.

 

Nothing to go past. I make notes when I read relevant pages. I write them in such that I get the most out of it. I quoted and gave the name of what I thought important. You don't like that? Tough! There was more than enough to identify the material, or with your minimal research capabilities you would never have found it.

 

Raw land was taxed. What else would you call it? Airplane tax??

- - - Updated - - -

He only wants something to complain about smitty. It was obvious you got it elsewhere when you posted that quote.

 

The fact is, the land was taxed at a % of its value using a progressive scale based on the size of the parcel. It was LVT but it didn't work because the people did not have the money to pay it. Just one more failure of an LVT to chalk up to experience.

- - - Updated - - -

I know that. I could care less if he likes how I referenced the post. I used the name for the important part.

In my opinion the most important failure of LVT is the inadequate taxes collected from our richest citizens. In spite of armor's chagrin about my mentioning another site, one of the comments I got from there was that the people who owned most of the parcels of land in the US are not the rich and most of whom gain their fortunes in ways not associated with land. Now if we went back to the 19th century we may find some land barons alive and well.

 

Which is as it should be: the landowner is benefiting from the actions of others, and depriving others of that benefit. The alternative is that those others are forced to subsidize the landowner, which is what you demand.

Which is just and good, as you are both getting the benefit of that road access, and depriving others of it.

Correct: there might not be a land value tax, a circumstance that always automatically entails massive injustice.

There is no way to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil but by lying, and Richard Carey is not an exception to that rule. LVT is coming. Nothing can stop it. It's just a question of how many more millions of innocent people will be robbed, oppressed, impoverished, starved, enslaved, tortured and murdered by greedy, evil landowners in the meantime.

 

What is unrealistic about not paying for what one is not taking?

Nope. They would seek to obtain the land they wanted to use, same as they seek to obtain any other benefit they desire through voluntary trade in a free market. They'd just be paying the community that creates the benefit for it, rather than paying a greedy, idle, privileged landowner for doing nothing.

This comment merely proves that despite all your huffing and puffing, you still don't even know what LVT is. Try to find a willingness to know: LVT is a VOLUNTARY payment to the provider of a benefit to secure that benefit, same as any other voluntary, beneficiary-pay, free market-based, value-for-value transaction.

 

They are definitely typically greedy, and greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil. The exact same level of greed and evil is observed among landowners as was formerly observed among slave owners, and for exactly the same reasons.

None of which, not coincidentally, you have been able to identify....

Yep, I guess that scotches LVT, all right: if we had LVT, it wouldn't stop politicians from kidnapping all the blonde, 12-year-old girls and selling them as sex slaves in Pakistan to raise revenue. How could I have thought LVT was a good idea when it can't even stop such obvious atrocities?

"Free capitalist country" is an oxymoron, and we've already established how much that "just compensation" would be: a framed picture of a guillotine to remind the ex-landowners to be grateful for how mercifully they have been treated.

 

None of which you have proved capable of identifying...

Whereas others can spend their whole lives in the parlor without mentioning the elephant....

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/INSULT >>>

What it proves most clearly of all is the absurdity and dishonesty of all objections to LVT.

 

We're using standard economic definitions.

If he was demolishing and humiliating you the way I have been (which I suspect he was), he definitely knew what he was talking about.

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/INSULT >>>

But not by value. Which proves me right and you and dnsmith wrong.

How many more times, and in how many more different ways, would I have to prove you wrong before you would become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?

I missed the part where there was some concrete support for dnsmith's claim that India had actually levied a land value tax.

 

Baloney! Just because the land owner gets some advantage of someone else's action has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything.

Nor does it force anyone to subsidize the land owner. That is absurd.

Why would anyone be deprived of using that road?

Especially against the land owner!

I agree, we should not rationalize privilege, justify injustice or excuse evil, and that is not what Richard Carey said.

I don't believe it is coming, and whether it does or not there is not one reason to believe that landowners will rob, oppress, impoverish, starve, enslave, torture or murder anyone and land owners are no more evil than those who do not own land. That is a fairy tale and a lot of baloney. Furthermore, you know it already.

 

It is totally unrealistic that a modestly wealthy landowner pay tax to a government while a very rich man who is not a landowner does not.

Hogwash!

LVT is nothing more than a tax based on the value of unimproved land. If it is voluntary it is likely few if anyone would pay it.

 

You are incapable of demolishing a 3 month old intellectually and your juvenile posts certainly do not humiliate anyone either.

 

In fact dnsmith posted a quote which clearly showed that land was being taxed a percentage of the land value. That is LVT.

Once would be enough if you ever prove anything, but so far you have proved you are nothing but a rude individual who either chooses to lack civility or don't know what civility is.

Go back and read his posts. It was clearly stated in the piece he quoted. Not only did it say land was taxed, it stated what the percentage was.

 

No, it is not, because that is what has actually happened wherever LVT has been implemented.

Fact.

Nope. Anyone who wanted to use more than their equal fair share of the good land would pay it, same as they voluntarily pay for a loaf of bread at the grocery store when they want one.

 

So if I understand you right, you believe that the landless rich won't contribute to government under the land value tax?

Suppose that the LVT is implemented. Also, suppose that I own no land and therefore pay no taxes, no taxes whatsoever. Furthermore, suppose that my goal in life is to create a stockpile of $1 billion in gold bars.

So I go to work making widgets, and spend all my earnings on gold bars, minus what I spend on Ramen Noddles. My demand for gold increases the price of gold and also the demand for land which contains gold mineral deposits; as well as land near public infrastructure which will accommodate all the activities involved in refining and transporting gold. My demands for gold have increased the price of gold, but also the demands of producers for certain types of land. The higher demand for these types of lands result in higher rents being offered for their exclusive use. Thus the government collects more revenue from those who hold those lands in exclusion of others.

In the end, while I own no land and have paid no taxes to the government, my lust for gold has increased government revenue by increasing the demand for land. This increased revenue, which resulted from my gold buying, helped build roads, sewer systems, schools, and public parks which are enjoyed by all; and consider all the widgets I produced and traded for gold, those widgets increased society's wealth, and helped increase living standards. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what I spend my earnings on. Maybe instead of gold bars I am building a collection of mega yachts. Whatever it is, my demands will ultimately increase the demand for land and the rent that government can collect from that land. The more yachts I have built, the more revenue government will have to build schools, parks, roads, etc.

 

Any system which taxes the less wealthy simply because they are a land owner and does not tax the rich who choose not to own land is totally screwed up.

B***S***

LVT can work in small areas as the land is being allotted, but not in a mature economy UNLESS the government is ready to pay a fair compensation to all the land owners and start over,