out of the box thought on taxes

No, I don't. You have either a reading comprehension problem or a dishonesty problem. I was obviously talking about the landowner not being able to make up for land rent he no longer gets to keep by charging more for the land. Which is proven by the fact that land's exchange value disappears with higher taxes. You're not going to be able to dispute that. But there will be somebody to pay the tax whether it's him or somebody else.

 

What about the labor that bought the land and paid its yearly taxes anyway? Why is it a bad thing if people want to buy up land and leave it undistirbed? Isn't thy better for the environment anyway? Can we afford for every acre to come under the plow? Would it be efficient to spread our energy resources further out? Etc...

 

No he's not.

 

I had to leave before finishing my thought so I will continue from here without bothering to read any of the clamor objecting to my post should there be any.

One of the biggest objections to LVT is the loss of Speculation in land value. The proponents of LVT tend to object to the very concept of speculation in land value, whereas that speculation is one of the engines which drive a robust economy. The very idea that it is even partially responsible for up or down cycles of business is nonsense. Many economic pressures cause cycles, not the least of which is government monetary policies; the most important cause of the recent housing boom and subsequent collapse which triggered the recession in 2007/8.

As I said earlier, LVT can be used AFTER and only after just compensation is made to current land owners but even then it tends to maintain an unfair tax situation making home ownership more difficult for our less affluent citizens.

 

I think what he was referring to is the old economic theory that capital is the excess production of labor. That may have been true during our agrarian economic days but that is so far behind us now there is not even a smidgen of that concept left. Capital now is considered the money it takes to create a product or a service and market it to consumers. In this day and age capital tends to be very mobile, and labor may or may not be part of the ownership of capital, and labor tends to be one of the major costs to capital in the process of doing business.

 

I think we have to start off at the end of your message and work up.

1. The US will never again go to a closed market economy. Open economies tend to become more prosperous than closed market economies and tariffs tend to do little more than cause reciprocal actions.

2. When discussing unionization we both recognize the terrible working conditions and wage issues of the corporate world prior to unions. There have been significant changes in labor laws which go well beyond the initial reasons for unions to exist to begin with. I agree that employees need a voice to protect them and our labor laws provide that voice as well or better than the union. I say that because only a little more than 10% of our labor force is unionized such that it is obvious that unions are only protecting what has become a small elite segment of our total private labor force. In many cases union products or services are so expensive non-union workers cannot afford to buy union made products or services.

As I see it unions have virtually outlived their usefulness. Public service unions especially if for no other reasons because they have little actual voice in what they are paid or their working conditions, and, because as a large voting block they are in a position to elect politicians which may or many not be consistent politically with the population at large.

 

Who did Ford Motor Company buy the land from? That person got his freebie and so will they once they sell it. The value of Ford Motor Company's land has probably increased by a lot since then and they weren't paying a land value tax so they've been pocketing increasing land rent by not compensating the community for the advantageous location which allows for more efficient production.

 

Doesn't matter what tax code the public adopts, the best government corporate money can buy will see to it, their true masters have the advantage.

No rich.elite really wants a different tax code than we have now. It already works for them.

 

What if you could remove all tax on the companies, what would happen?

You could argue that more industry would set up shops here?
You could argue that more people wood be working and paying tax to offset lost taxes?
You could argue wages would go up do to shortage of people?
More money would be needed to build out the infrastucture?
All other countrys would follow your lead and compete with you?
Industry moves to where the cheapest labour can be found?
You're back where you started?
You compete, with free buidings and land for the factory?
Other countrys follow your lead?
You're back where you started?
Business always go to the lowest labour market, with the longest working hrs, and fewest rules.?
This won't change until they run out of third world countrys and all countrys are third world.?
The best paid CEOs are really good at gaming the system, as long as they write the rules to the game, you can't win.?
You have to write new rules that are fair for all?
I do agree with Roy as far as the world has to belong to every person on it. It is our home, there is no other way to say that?
So it has to be up to the people to write the rules, that would be the government of the people.
Government not just for the individual but all, the rules have to be good for all including the very rich and the very poor, big business and small business?
Compitition has to get back to more productivity, better ideas, better machines, not gaming the system?

 

I can't reply to all of that right now. But that's funny. Considering I was being all civil and you were the one who instead of just addressing the argument accused me of "knowing little about economics". And you didn't even know the term 'rent seeking'. And now you can't even take the payback of being informed that you didn't even know what you were replying to. I think you probably have some conflict of interest with the subject which is why you feel "abused" when confronted with it. You're just looking for excuses to tuck tail and run now.

 

I do agree that as 3rd world countries mature economically their economic/labor evolution will cause their pay to rise and they will become a huge market for our goods and services. I don't believe it will take as long as you suggest based on the rise in wages in the 3rd world which is already along with higher transportation costs causing come jobs to move back to the US. You cannot tie union membership to imports in an open economy and the US will never go back to protectionism/tariffs.

Another issue is the one world order; which distresses me in some ways. A one world order from the standpoint of economics is basically what is developing now and the reason protectionism will never again work, ESPECIALLY in large and prosperous economies. I want nothing to do with a political one world order in which other countries with larger populations could have any say so about our way of life, our constitution or our laws.

 

Do you think I was talking about you? Did you earlier say I did not understand economics in spite of the fact I taught economics along with psychology at a university? I have not nor will I tuck tail and run, but if people attempt to malign my understanding of a subject I have studied and even taught in graduate school, it is obvious that there is no reason to communicate with such economically challenged persons. If that does not apply to you fine. I can tell you now, unless you have studied economics through the graduate level you do not understand it as well as I do.

"Rent-Seeking" occurs when capital (companies or individuals) attempts to obtain an economic gain from others without giving any benefits to the over all economy. Typically it involves special conditions for loans or tariff or tax protection not available to everyone in the economy and effectively creates a special interest group instead of to the economy over all.

 

I believe we may need to increase the tax burden of real persons, in that case.

What if we only tax artificial persons instead.

 

I honestly don't care where you studied or if you taught economics. None of that by itself validates the content of your posts and neither does it invalidate the content of mine.

And yet you accused me of "knowing little about economics" when I said rent seeking has no economic value which you now all of a sudden essentially agree with. Anyways, now you'll just have to explain what benefits the landowner gives to the economy in return for the payments he gets for land (rent). Keep it separate from payments for improvements. You do realize that the entire concept of rent seeking originally comes from payments for land, right?

 

Some of us are singularly unimpressed with academic credentials if there is any indication that the professor's training was at all influenced by known whackjob charlatan economists.

From the results of applying them, most economic theories more resemble superstitions.

Mises was full of those.

 

I have no idea how you figure that. Aside from our raw materials, I do not see what we will have to offer them after we have built them factories to produce what we used to produce and taught their computer programmers all of our computer skills. Why would they need our slightly more costly, union-made stuff? They have plenty of their own slave-made stuff that was made by our technical standards. The only difference will be that their factories are not required to do things like meet OSHA standards and dispose of toxic waste in a way that does not endanger the neighbors.

Of course, minimizing international law, especially as relates to trade and labor rights prevents us from in any way influencing those countries who out-perform us on the bottom line by screwing the workers and polluting the ocean.

I know that most right wingers and industrialists and Chicago School economists will take issue with me when I say that we should consider such practices when setting tariffs on imports from other countries, but, screw 'em. We need to protect ourselves from the poison that China is dumping on us and we need to resist the movement to reduce working people to a commodity again.

 

No, I mean like the guy who sold the land to Ford charging them full market value for what government, the community and nature provided, and then Ford later doing the same when it sells the land to someone else.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so you are unable to distinguish between exchange value and rental value.

 

Land value is the measure of how scarce land is, and how little it is taxed. The astronomical value of land therefore already proves you wildly wrong, with no further argument needed.

No, you don't. I doubt there's a landowner anywhere in the USA who is paying a fair amount in taxes.

Yes, landowners and land speculators generally have governments in their pockets. Virtually all successful civic election campaigns are paid for by landowners, landlords, land speculators, land developers, real estate agents, and mortgage lenders.

I see. So, in your "mind" it was government misuse of its land, and not the subsidies to private landownership and land speculation, that somehow led to the sub-prime mortgage land speculation bubble.

 

Actually, he advocated land value taxation on all land.

 

What about the labor that bought the slave and paid for his fetters?

Because they are depriving others of opportunity.

No.

No, which is why land value taxation ensures the best sites are fully utilized, allowing the worse ones to be left vacant.

I don't know what that means, but probably not.

 

Property tax is a land value tax. The price of any building includes the value of the land below except in the case of things like townhomes or condominiums.

 

Unless you plan on reducing taxes to 1% or something close to that, this is a nonstarter.

The Netherlands has a very low corporate tax on profits, which is why it's used as a tax haven. And when you consider that moving the money around is very easy to do, the cost of doing so is negligible as well. We're talking about digital microtransactions. The money never has to physically go to these places, it's just a matter of numbers being moved electronically so as to minimize tax liability.

 

none.

If a foreign company can operate what amounts to slave labor, pollute at will, ignore both product and employee safety protocols and all with the acquiescence of their national government then any nation that abides by those standards cannot compete fairly.

require companies that export goods to the us to comply with Us labor laws, pollution regulations, safety regulations.

Create a fair competitive environment and we will win.

 

for the most part, I think that at least a rationale approach, but the question wasn't "what level," it was "what kind." It's comparative. Assuming we must tax enough to spend what Congress is apparently unwilling to cut, what system of taxation (not 'kickbacks' or 'reverse' taxation as that is a form of spending, not a form of taxation) would hinder our companies the least.

This isn't a question of what *IS* the best tax system for us to have, but of what tax system works best for the American economy on a global market. I contend that it's a sales tax, as most other taxes (apart from tariffs) only hit American producers.

Btw, if you (or anyone else) thinks there's another angle of taxation that's not considered enough, such as fairness (though I think that's considered a lot), I'd be glad to see another thread asking about it specifically from that angle.

 

Sorry, but you just proved you are a naive apologist for privilege, injustice and parasitism.

Just compensation for no longer being privileged to rob the productive and contribute nothing in return? Sounds like zero compensation to me.

Of course they would have the option of paying or leaving.

LOL! Meaning you?

The astronomical value of land proves LVT would work on a vast scale.

There is no "assumption" that the landowner is rich: the great majority of all land IS OWNED by the rich, both directly and through the corporations they own, and "rich" is not the criterion of land value taxation anyway. Justice and efficiency are. By contrast, it is indisputable that income is not a measure of how rich one is.

The problems will all be with opposition from the evil, greedy, privileged, parasitic filth who currently pocket a fifth of GDP in return for nothing by owning land, and want to continue doing so. And LVT will be incomparably fairer than any other proposed tax system.

There is no such presumption. The current landowner is even more the recipient of a vast, exorbitant and unsustainable welfare subsidy giveaway at public expense, because government now spends so much more on the services and infrastructure whose value landowners are privileged to pocket.

Which might be why you are the only one to mention such an idea.

Were you under an erroneous impression that that constituted a rejoinder to something we have said?

As above. Land is not capital, and it is absolutely immobile.

No, it is a fact of economics. They can't get more than the market price, no matter how much of their costs they futilely try to recoup by raising their prices.

In any case, the intention of LVT is that landowners would not remain in their parasitic business.

Wrong. Business shares the tax burden according to the relevant elasticities, same as anyone else.

Business will move INTO a land tax jurisdiction (as it historically always has) because when producers don't have to support a rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning class, their total production costs are lower.

Now you are -- with admirable inevitability -- just lying. YOU KNOW that the rich are not identical with landowners, and you are the only one claiming "the rich" are defined as "landowners."

More proof of your ignorance of economics. Land can't move, and it can't hide, and land value taxation can't be avoided by the landowner.

Again, you are just lying about who the rich, landowners, and profit-making businesses are.

With land value taxation, the producers will keep all they earn, while landowners will no longer be privileged to take what they have not earned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq1aU6rFcNQ