Most US states have been using one form of taxation levied against land, with or without improvements. As envisioned by Henry George it would be a single tax to take the place of all other taxes to include: income, property tax, sales tax, and any other tax levied against citizens. The discussion has included opinions as to whether or not it could raise sufficient revenue to fund all levels of government. Most people suggest it would only be good at the local level and there is further question as to whether or not it would raise as much or more taxes than property tax does now. At a conference discussing the issue the following opinions were expressed. Two papers treated the efficiency characteristics of the land value tax. Edwin Mills examines the issue in the context of an urban economy, showing that the tax is indeed efficient in its effects on land use, as claimed. But he believes that this is immaterial because the land value tax cannot yield more than trivial revenues, even at rates that are so high that the courts would find them to be an unconstitutional "taking" of property. Moreover, it is so difficult to value land properly that the efficiency advantages cannot be realized. Thomas Nechyba explores the land value tax in the context of a general model of the entire economy. He develops what is known as a "computable general equilibrium model" that quantitatively describes the changes in the macro-economy that will occur with the substitution of the land value tax for income taxation. Given his assumptions, the model predicts that the reduction in taxation of capital will so increase the aggregate amount of capital that the demand for land on which to use the capital will generate substantial increases in land values. That in turn will permit the land value tax to generate considerable revenues at a rate that is not confiscatory. Most economists would consider the significant increases in total national output predicted by the model to be real gains in economic efficiency.
It is my opinion that an LVT can be used, providing the following list (originally submitted by another forum member) governs its institution. 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.
Weak armor, just weak. Who made the car is totally irrelevant. Who owns the car; who spent the money to keep the autoworker employed is the important part of the issue. Labor collects its wage. There is no more fanfare for labor or the manufacturer once it is sold. Then the owner is the important person in the mix. If I was Tax Payer I would certainly object your your insult calling him dishonest. The same thing applies to land. Land is either purchased, earned as a grant for service or with a preemptory grant having been the legal settler. Land owners are as honest and honorable as any other investor, or worker, or public servant.
Are you now starting to understand that you and your purchases are part of a larger context, or am I wasting my time?
I have always understood that. Everyone's expenditures are part of consumer demand. But you still may be wasting time
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 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 serve all of the revenue requirements of all levels of government. By necessity that would not only 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. 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.
