Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

In bold above, if you believe in the bell curve, it seems impossible to prevent so-called poverty. Poverty is nothing but a dollar line drawn in the sand and those below that line are politically considered to be in poverty. If Americans currently earn between minimum wage and $75/hour, if you increase the minimum wage above the so-called poverty level, over time this will also force all other wages to increase proportionately. So given enough time for the wages to cycle through the pay scales, down the road, a certain percentage of Americans, relative to the economy, will again find themselves below the 'new' poverty line...

 

I am always referring to official poverty if you are going to quibble merely to distinguish from the disingenuous argument about the poor.

 

I don't. There is significant variation in poverty across countries. That then helps explain differences in home ownership rates

 

Fair warning to all. Please engage in a respectful discussion and stop the baiting.

Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

Let's say there was a company called Udder Goodness that has a monopoly on dairy. Would it be accurate to say Udder Goodness does not have a monopoly on dairy because you could substitute it with orange juice?

In the same sense, let's say there is a land speculator who bought up lots of land near a new train station that was being planned. The train station is build and because of the large volume of commuters the land near it becomes very valuable. Would it be accurate to say that the land speculator does not have a monopoly because you could use a different location instead? Think of it in terms of location.

 

They're not clear substitutes. I don't have orange juice on my weetabix. There is no monopoly with land. What you could say is that there is differentiated product (which would make it closer to monopolistic competition; but only if we wanted to play games with basic vocab). You put up your price of your 18th century cottage with a particularly appealing thatched roof? I'll buy the one in the next village.

That isn't a case of monopoly. That is just a case of speculation. At worst its a case of asymmetric information (as you'd have to assume that those selling the land are completely unaware of the station plans. The impact of that station would actually be ambiguous, given housing services can be reduced in value through noise pollution

 

I think it is safe to say if anyone wants to institute LVT in any area in which I own land, they are welcome to pay market price for my land and have at it. Otherwise we will settle for what we have now, property tax on the combined value of land and improvements to maintain the infrastructure we have now.

 

Why on earth would, or should, the community pay you for what it is giving you in the first place?

Of course heedless people who don't care much for justice have invested in the unjust status quo, making themselves financially dependent on it, just as they did when slavery was legal. That fact does not give the status quo any legitimacy whatever.

 

I paid for it. Its mine. You want it, you buy it.

It has all the legitimacy it needs, by law.

 

"I paid for my slave. He's mine. You want him, you buy him."

See? It continues to be the case that all your "arguments" in defense of landowner privilege are exactly the same as arguments in defense of slavery. As slavery is known to be indefensible, your "arguments" are all know to be fallacious, with no further refutation needed.

Just as slavery did.

See?

 

This illustrates the weakness in your approach: by comparing land with labour you're essentially implying that there is no difference between these factors of production. There clearly is. This helps explain why your argument has failed to spot that most rent seeking in the modern economy reflects labour relations

 

So you obviously condone slavery. I don't. I think it is inhuman.

Since there is no connection with slavery to land owning any more than slavery is connected to Georgism, your argument is not just lame, it is obscene.

Yep, I see, you like to use ludicrous arguments in the vane attempt to find some way to support your position. As usual you have failed miserably and have yet to produce a single argument supporting LVT. See?

 

this is called a non sequitur

 

No, it's called logic. Something you are incapable of, as you've demonstrated before.

 

Yes, attempting to compare landowning to slavery is a non-sequitur. All it is when used by Georgist ranters is an attempt to demonize landowning. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that landowners are no better or worse than any other group of people. Most are ethical, reasonable, and responsible people.

 

no, it's called a non sequitur. slavery is not analogous to land.

 

Nor is it analogous to owning land. The claim is nothing more than Georgists trying to gain credibility with their rants.

 

We don't tax people because they own a home, we tax them because they're responsible for it. When those homes require services and infrastructure, the community provides it and taxes the homeowners accordingly.

There's no double standard. Capital gains taxation is based on the theory that government provides an infrastructure which allows business to flourish and therefore taxes businesses on a percentage of the profits they produce in that environment. It's kept low to encourage private capital to be loaned to folks who have good business ideas.

Politicians are afraid to tax people based on their wealth, because this country recognizes private property. When we begin saying people only have a right to keep private property as long as they give the state a share of it we will have fundamentally changed the nature of this country.

​

 

They are taxed only a small part of what the community provides at that location. The land's full publicly created rental value would need to be taxed in order to pay for what the community provides at that location. For most people that would be an immediate gain with other tax burdens lifted off the economy and for those who do not own a home yet whatever they will pay in LVT comes directly off the purchase price they have to pay for the land when they buy it. (I'm only referring to the land portion not the improvement portion.)​

 

A man shipwrecks on an island. There is already an inhabitant on the island. Does it make a difference whether the inhabitant enslaves the man or simply owns the island? In both cases, the man will have to do the bidding of the inhabitant and is essentially a slave. He tries to swim away from the island, he'll drown. Oh, but what if he built a boat? How is he going to build a boat without without using the privately owned island and its natural resources? Considering his nonexistent bargaining power I'd say he's (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

The landowner is an unscrupulous economic entity whose sole purpose is extortion via government enforced monopoly privilege.

 

Non sequitur. Slavery is not analogous to owning land.

 

No ones rights are violated.

 

Question begging.

Clearly, you're incapable of addressing the content to demonstrate why I am wrong.

 

In the legal sense of 'rights' perhaps. Looking throughout history though, that seems not to be a very high moral standard.