out of the box thought on taxes

That is a major BENEFIT of LVT.

Right into the ground, as we saw in 2008.

Everyone reading this saw the proof that you are wrong five years ago.

"Don't blame land speculation! Don't blame landowners! Blame anything but the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowning!"

Just compensation for all the centuries of their depredations and parasitism? How about confiscation of all their assets, and a framed picture of a guillotine to remind them of how mercifully they were treated?

Another cretinous fabrication from you. LVT makes homeownership possible and affordable for virtually everyone -- though no longer so attractive, as it would no longer place homeowners on the escalator powered by the treadmill of the producers. You would be able to buy a serviceable home in a decent location with a few months' after-tax wages, and decades of debt slavery to mortgage lenders in order to own your own home would be a thing of the past.

 

Not at all. Your original comment about rent seeking said little as it relates to the real world, and in fact it does not necessarily have anything to do with a land owner. The facts are land is valuable if put to work. Sometimes there is no obvious value to the land and unless a speculator buys it, either develops it or lets it sit, nothing will happen. The money the speculator puts into the land goes into the economy, dollar for dollar and it does good to that extent. Speculators are responsible for billions of dollars of development, all of which is good for the economy, and unless that speculator tries to get special favors or tax advantage rent seeking is not an issue. I suggest you learn about the subject before heading off on a tangent and making loud noises which are effectively irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Mises was one of histories smartest economists of the capitalist school. And personally I could care less if you attribute anything to my credentials, even if you were sharp enough to recognize good from bad.

 

From what you write it is obvious you don't really understand international economics at all. India alone has a relatively new 300,000,000 middle class who are learning to appreciate US expertise, products and services. China as well. Over the next few years as their economy matures that new middle class will grow and become more of a market for our goods. As far as union workers are concerned, I expect their influence will not last over the next half century. You may feel like you are doing our country and its labor force a favor by protesting against some issues but in fact we will never again become protectionist and couldn't afford to if we could. Obviously with maturity comes environmentalism and it is necessary to live in the world with all people from all nations, like it or not.

 

That is not a fact, because you didn't.

ROTFL! Now the guy who doesn't know what rent seeking is, and doesn't know how tax incidence is determined, is claiming to have taught economics in graduate school!!?!

ROTFLMAO!

<yawn> Says the guy who not only doesn't know what rent seeking is, but didn't even recognize the term....

LOL! I can tell you now, I've already proved that you don't know the first thing about economics, and that we understand it better than you can ever dream of doing.

As landowners do.

Like the landowners' privilege of abrogating others' rights to liberty without making just (or any) compensation.

Where do you imagine the term, "rent" came from, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

And you have proved once again how little you know about economics and what makes a country prosperous.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are alluding to the real estate crash you obviously have no idea what caused it. Again, learn something about economics and come back instead of insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

 

I have forgotten more about economics than you will ever learn, even if you could learn. What you have proved so far is, you can insult, but you still haven't shown any knowledge of economics.

 

No, it is not. Property tax is two opposite taxes: the tax on improvement value, or what the owner contributes to the wealth of the community, and the tax on land value, or what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner.

I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," Detroit's property tax, which taxes a $1M building on a $1K parcel of land at 3% as a $1,001K property, is actually a land value tax of $30,030 on land valued at $1000, or at a rate of 3003%.

Let me guess: you used to teach economics at the graduate level in a university?

 

And if they set the price to cover their costs, and add some for a profit, and somebody pays that price for the land, then that is the market price.



.

 

We have proved to you that a land value tax does not hit US producers even as much as a sales tax. Why do you refuse to know the relevant facts of economics?

 

I don't teach economics, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But seriously, I do have a B.A. in Economics.

No need for the tone though. I've actually agreed with you on numerous social and economic issues even if I don't always respond to your posts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this land value tax though. Are you suggesting that the annual tax should be equal to the total value of the land?

 

One thing is for sure, you don't know enough of the relevant facts to explain it to anyone. I find your consistent insults and personal attacks offensive and your lack of knowledge does not help your case.

 

What objection can there be to taxing only artificial persons in our republic whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates on real persons in our republic.

 

You just can't resist making a fool of yourself, can you?

That's OK. I'm here to help you:

But it usually does.

No, the fact is, economically advantageous land is valuable whether it is put to work or not, which is why those who want to put it to work must pay so much to get it from those who are not putting it to work. You know this. Why tell the lie that land is only valuable if put to work? YOU KNOW that vacant, unused land trades for astronomical sums.

The only time nothing will happen on economically advantageous land is when a speculator STOPS it from happening -- which is their principal economic "contribution."

That is the broken window fallacy. By the exact same evil, brain-dead "logic," the money a slave owner spends on fetters for his slave "goes into the economy."

We already saw that stupid garbage disproved five years ago. The land speculator, like the landowner, is a pure parasite.

Ludicrous, outrageous and dishonest nonsense. All landowning qua landowning is NOTHING BUT rent seeking.

LOL! As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Too bad you are not sharp or informed enough to recognize just how thoroughly you have been demolished and humiliated for your economic ignorance and dishonesty.

 

Since payments for land are pure rent, in the economic sense, it has a lot to do with landowners.

Land doesn't have to be put to use to be valuable. It only has to have the potential to be put to good use. Do the vacant lots I see in San Fernando Valley have no value? Of course they do. Which is why land speculators keep them empty to reduce their property tax burden until they are satisfied with the increase in value and then cash in on it.

Uhm, no, whether the land speculator buys it and keeps it vacant, buys it and develops it, or just doesn't exist, doesn't effect the land's value. The only thing effected would be the improvement value which is something entirely different. What does effect the land's value is the population around it, the roads, the fire department, the schools, the hospitals, the power lines, the sewer system, the businesses around it, and so on.

But mostly it goes into the pockets of the previous speculator, if there was one, and his own pockets once he charges people for benefits he's not providing which all go into land value, as I've explained above.

But how many billions more do they take out of the economy in return for nothing? Other people's taxes are used to build infrastructure and services, driving up the demand for land, increasing its value, and thus ultimately those taxes are shoveled into the pockets of those who own land. The entire system is designed for land speculators to be profitable with special favors and tax advantages. Can't you see that?

Heed your own advice.

 

<yawn> I guess that must be why, like a number of Georgist economists, and unlike you, I predicted it.

I'm having fun schooling you.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL! More like you have forgotten more about economics than YOU ever learned...

I have demolished and humiliated you for your economic ignorance. Deal with it.

 

As the Spartans said to the Athenians: "If." Now you just need to explain why anyone would pay a price for land that would guarantee them a loss -- unless they could find an even bigger fool to unload it on.

 

It's a tax on the full rental value of land, not it's full exchange value. In fact, land would no longer have any exchange value with the land value tax implemented.

 

You are denying, then, that the price paid in the marketplace for the property is the market price?

 

Wouldn't that render ownership of land rather useless?

 

Well, it beats being homeless...

LOL! Good one!

What is this, the Econombie Apocalypse?

Take it or leave it. There is no polite way to inform the emperor that he is naked.

Very shrewd.

I'm stating explicitly that the annual tax should be so high that the total market exchange value of the land is less than that.

- - - Updated - - -

That is precisely the point.

 

When I do, I will quite posting, but so far I am enjoying laughing at you.

You couldn't help a blind man across the street. Here is the definition of rent seeking, and it does not necessarily have anything to do with a land owner.

Trade, Macroeconomics
Dictionary Says
Definition of 'Rent-Seeking'
When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.

Investopedia explains 'Rent-Seeking'
An example of rent-seeking is when a company lobbies the government for loan subsidies, grants or tariff protection. These activities don't create any benefit for society, they just redistribute resources from the taxpayers to the special-interest group. ​

<snip for brevity>

Though real estate speculators did contribute to the crash, the biggest cause of the crash was government monetary policy and fiscal policy, along with some other issues which heated the market to rapidly and prices outpaced value of the land, ergo inflation. View attachment 20238

Though it is true many if not most landowners want rent, that is not the meaning or rent seeking in economics. See the definition above.

So far it doesn't look like you could beat a big yellow dog in a debate about economics.
Good night!

- - - Updated - - -

Dictionary Says
Definition of 'Rent-Seeking'
When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.

Investopedia explains 'Rent-Seeking'
An example of rent-seeking is when a company lobbies the government for loan subsidies, grants or tariff protection. These activities don't create any benefit for society, they just redistribute resources from the taxpayers to the special-interest group.

 

This is out of some other box;

What objection can there be to taxing only artificial persons in our republic whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates on real persons in our republic.

 

He seems to be claiming that a university paid him not to see it, and to cut out the eyes of helpless students who were in danger of seeing it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm denying that anyone would be stupid enough to pay what you claim is the market price.

 

You know, you didn't used to be so arrogant. Maybe you're spending too much time here.

Seriously though.. Henry George is a bit outdated. Inevitably, land ownership plays an important role in things like private property. Why would I want to buy a house if I didn't own the land below it?

 

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA
Wouldn't that render ownership of land rather useless?

If the land has no owner, what good is it?

Maybe it would revert back to the State?



.