Wealthy will ALWAYS have an advantage

I just don't see that. Enron was a perfect example. They had massive resources invested in lobbying. When the company crashed, Skinner went to jail. Where is this massive control over congress?

And how many hundreds of other examples are there? GM, and all the stake holders who got screwed over by government, when Obama gave it over to the Unions. Why didn't all that money give them a larger say in how GM was handled?

See whenever that happens, no one says anything. But the moment that something happens a company benefits from, you start screaming about 'legalized bribery". Cherry picking your examples, will always result in supporting your cause. Conveniently ignoring all counter examples, makes for an easy case.

If anything, the real problem is extortion. Al Gore wasn't being called by companies. Al Gore was calling companies, and demanding money, or threatening to sic the DOJ on them, like they attacked Microsoft, with fraudulent charges.

Companies do this all the time. Many companies give money to BOTH political parties, which should tell you something. If the companies were really interested in controlling policy, they would lobby only the dude who won the election. But giving money to both parties, means they are simply trying to pay protection money, to avoid a mafia hit. Because no matter who wins, you need to pay off both sides, so no one attacks you.

Further, the people can only be driven into poverty by government. Companies can't force you to be poor. Only government can.

In both cases, the problem is, the public keeps electing people, who abuse them in the name of "regulating big companies", or "taxing the rich" (which really means taxing the poor).

 

You cannot make facts of history, economics, and objective physical reality disappear by claiming I have not posted them, sorry.

The usual reason: telling the truth. Unfortunately, it is hard to know when the mods will interpret a philosophical observation as a personal attack.

ROTFL! Thank you for admitting that it never happened.

It's called having the courage to identify evil. If more people had it, there would be a deal less evil in the world.

It's difficult to know when the mods will consider a simple philosophical observation a personal attack. If there were slave owners here trying to rationalize and justify slavery, would it be a personal attack to observe that they were merely trying to rationalize and justify their own greed, thieving, parasitism and evil?

 

They never did appear, and you certainly have never supported your opinion beyond a few egg heads agreeing with you.

Oh its not hard to interpret a personal attack. That is the way you commonly post. And if you aren't posting an insult to a person responding to one of your blusters, you are insulting an entire decent class of people.....landowners.

I can look at your posts and identify the evils of LVT.

I think it is easy to see you trying to justify your greed and parasitism in that you want to use infrastructure paid for by landowners. I think the mods have done a good job recognizing insults and calling people liars.

 

Of course they did. And you know it.

ROTFL! "A few eggheads" like American revolutionary leader Thomas Paine, and half a dozen Nobel laureates in economics including libertarian icon Milton Friedman (plus numerous facts of history and economics, let's not forget)...?

While you have never posted ANYTHING AT ALL -- no facts, no logic, no history, no economics -- to support your anti-justice bigotry and self-seeking...?

You are just sad, now.

You mean it's not hard to claim a personal attack. Or do you mean a personal attack like when you accuse forum members who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries...?

Identifying facts that those who serve greed, privilege, injustice and evil do not want identified. Correct.

I see. So now you even claim that the greedy, evil landowners in places like the Philippines, Brazil, etc. who routinely hire thugs to assassinate land reform activists are "a decent class of people." Check. Some landowners hire murderers to silence champions of justice; others have it easier, and can just run to the mods whenever unpalatable facts are mentioned.

You mean evils like, "Landowners won't get to pocket other people's taxes in return for nothing any more"...?

No, I paid for it through my taxes, and must then pay landowners full market value for access to the infrastructure my taxes just paid for. That is why the landless toil their lives away and get nowhere, while landowners get rapidly richer while doing, and contributing, nothing whatever. It's simply obvious.

Because they have done your bidding. Duh.

 

Actually they did your bidding for insulting others and/or calling them liars.You did it to yourself.

I pay my taxes too.

So break this one down for me. I am given authority by the community to occupy a piece of land on which I pay taxes based on its value. I build an apartment building with 100 luxury units. My building is worth many times more than the land on which I built the building was appraised and taxed on. I rent all 100 units and receive market rent for all of them. My income from those units after costs is about $100,000 a month. The original land value required me to pay $1,000 a year. Are you going to increase my tax because my building is worth more money than the land? If the building is destroyed and the earth cleared, is the land still worth the same as when it started? Clearly I as the one authorized to occupy the land (as if it were fee simple or a perpetually renewable lease which can be sold, bequeathed or given away) should be rewarded for the improvements I made, right?

 

I assume you are talking about the proposed full location subsidy repayment system, here.

No. In fact, with the universal individual land tax exemption (analogous to the current universal individual income tax exemption), your land tax liability would disappear entirely when the first unit was occupied as a citizen's residence of record.

Maybe more, depending on how long ago that was, what else was going on in the community in the interim, etc.

Of course. The market will reward you if you have done a good job providing valuable improvements efficiently. Your improvements are of no concern to the LSR office, as long as they do not constitute a nuisance that could reduce the value of nearby land.

I thank you for these honest questions; but unfortunately, by asking them you have proved that up to now, you have not understood the first thing about LVT. Not the first frickin' thing. Which I knew must be the case, of course.

 

You are a real hoot! The very idea that simply because a rental property is occupied it is automatically exempt from tax liability? It is amazing how little you really understand about economics, real estate or tax liability in a community.

BTW, just to help you understand, the amount of tax on the basic land prior to building, will increase as building on the land increases the value of not only the land the building is on, but likely all the land in the near vicinity. When the building is destroyed, it is highly unlikely that the tax value of the land will ever go back down to its pre-building value.

Don't you think it is time for you to learn a little about economics in the world today?

 

<sigh> That is not the idea. It seems it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you, because whatever I say, you just claim I said something else, and merrily bash away at that.

Try to find a willingness to understand:

1. I was explaining how LVT would work, not how the current system works, because it seemed that's what you asked me for. YOU SAID: "Are you going to increase my tax because my building is worth more money than the land?" Not "Does my property tax increase under the current system because my building is worth more than the land?" Obviously it does, and THAT OBVIOUSLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. I cannot fathom what you imagine the purpose might be of asking me to explain the current system by asking me what I would do in a hypothetical case clearly unrelated to the current system. Clear?

2. That a rental property was simply occupied would not exempt it from taxation under LVT. Rather, as the universal individual LVT exemption would likely be around $100/month/person in most parts of the USA, occupation of even one unit in your hypothetical apartment building would likely obtain sufficient exemption to eliminate the $1000/year in LVT liabilities that you stated in your hypothetical example.

Clear?

<sigh> For a brief, shining moment, because you said, "break this one down for me," and asked me if I was going to increase your taxes, not if the current system would increase your taxes, I assumed you had actually asked an honest question about how LVT would work in practice. My bad.

You are mistaken. While they may increase the value of nearby land, improvements, by definition, do not increase the unimproved value of the land parcel they are built on.

Because the community has in the meantime increased the welfare subsidy it shovels into the landowner's pockets.

I know incomparably more about it than you, as already proved.

I assumed you were asking how LVT would work, as you obviously have no idea. And as it is completely pointless to ask me to explain how the current system works, and you explicitly asked me if I would increase your taxes if you build a luxury apartment building, I foolishly gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed your request for explanation had a purpose. My bad. I should have known better.

Now, do you think you could actually respond to what I actually said, for once?

 

Let's see who is capable of rational discussion, shall we?

So you agree you don't understand it. OK.

While I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist (you got that term from Reiver), millions of reasonable people -- including some highly intelligent and informed ones -- have understood Henry George's views very clearly.

Two first mistakes? Does that sound rational to you?

It wasn't irrelevant, nor was it unreasonable, as everyone reading this knows. You asked me to break it down for you, and then asked me if I would tax you more for building on your hypothetical land parcel. Why would you ask those things if you were only talking about the current system, not the proposed one?

That wasn't a mistake. It was the literal truth of the matter in the hypothetical case YOU CONSTRUCTED. I already showed you why it would end in YOUR hypothetical: the location rent YOU HYPOTHESIZED was so small -- $1k/yr -- that even one tenant's universal individual exemption of about $100/month would be enough to eliminate the tax liability.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< I have shown you exactly why even a single tenant's occupancy would eliminate the land tax liability in your hypothetical example: the land tax liability YOU CHOSE TO TALK ABOUT was so small that one resident citizen's individual exemption would be enough to eliminate it.

>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<.

I never said otherwise. You just made a false assumption about what I plainly wrote, an assumption that you cannot justify with any sort of quote, and won't be justifying, ever.

How could it be an honest question, when you immediately turned around and pretended to be talking about the current system, not the proposed one? And I didn't "throw" any sort of "stuff" into the game. I stated the expected result of the hypothetical example YOU CONSTRUCTED. If you will recall, it was YOU, not me, who specified the land tax was only $1K/yr, remember?

I have proved it was entirely reasonable and objectively correct. A single universal individual exemption of $100/month eliminates YOUR hypothesized land tax liability of $1K/yr. That's just elementary school arithmetic. To claim that elementary school arithmetic is unreasonable doesn't seem altogether rational to me.

Dictionary definitions, obviously. Improvements cannot increase unimproved value any more than loading a ship can increase its empty weight. Is any person capable of rational discussion unaware of this?

But now you are just trying to change the subject again. Of course improvements can increase the unimproved value of empty land where they are not located, because that land is still unimproved. It's empty. That's what "publicly created land value" means: the land value that the community around a land parcel creates on that parcel without any contirbution from the landowner. I don't know any clearer way to explain that to you.

False. In fact, the unimproved value of the land you own exactly measures the minimum value of the welfare subsidy you expect the community to give you.

How else does the landowner get so much money for doing nothing?

How much more do you collect from tenants for the location than you pay in tax on that location? That's the size of the subsidy you are collecting from the community.

Anyone can verify that our statements are correct and the opposing statements absurd fabrications.

You seem to feel compelled to do so in virtually every post.

Methinks thou dost protest too much....

I stated the facts very clearly, so clearly that I know you understood them. My clients pay me well for the clarity and precision of my writing.

No, it was a specific response directed to specific questions from you. It's not my fault that you now repent of having asked them because the answers comprehensively and conclusively demolish you. You should have heeded the old lawyer's axiom: never ask a question if you don't already know what the answer will be.

No, I have proved my statement was objectively correct. One resident citizen's individual land tax exemption of about $100/month is more than enough to eliminate your hypothesized land tax liability of $1K/yr. You are just struggling to find some way to not know that fact.

 

Calling me a liar again eh?

None of your ideas are correct, objectively or subjectively. The point of a reasonable property tax is, the more value the total property had, the more tax is charged and in most places commercial (rental property) is taxed at a higher %. In that way landowners put more back into the economy than do non-landowners.

 

Making false accusations against me in order to evade the fact that I have demolished you again, eh?

You have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

I see. So, when a landowner takes $2000 from the economy in land rent, and repays $200 of that gift in property tax, while a non-landowner takes nothing from the economy and pays $50 in property tax through burden shifting on the rented improvements he lives in, that's called, "landowners putting more back into the economy than non-landowners"...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

 

You have never demolished anyone in debate. You make lots of claims, but it has not happened.

Landowners pay property tax at a higher rate on commercial property. They also pay income tax on income from commercial property. Landowners contribute to the economy as much as any business in various taxes and in the salaries they pay to employees and tradesmen who do work on their property. Landowners have funded the initial infrastructure and continue to pay tax to maintain the infrastructure.

 

Another "hooray for the rich" post. You advocate their position so repetitively, I have to ask. Are you rich?

 

Where did you get rich from my post Rtwngfraud? We were talking about landowners, which some people call automatically greedy parasites.

No, I am not rich. And I do not believe rich people are any less moral than poor people. Personal traits don't come in any particular wealth group.

I do believe that unsuccessful people tend to have made bad choices; in education, in business, at work etc. Of course there are some who are unsuccessful through no fault of their own, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I also don't believe that anyone can blame the rich from taking from them as wealth is not finite. I spent 27 years in the military so you know I was not rich. What I did was make a decision early and we bought a house at ever post we were sent to, and instead of selling them, we kept them and rented them out such that by the time I retired half were paid for and the average occupancy rate paid us an income until they were paid off. When we settled down after retirement, we sold all the houses not where we settled and bought property here as much to help my children have a place to retire should they want to and until then they offer us help with our retirement.

 

All welfare does is provide minimum needs for people who would otherwise starve to death or be forced to live under bridges with their children in the winter time...What a waste! The tarp bailouts kept the billionaires solvent which kept hundreds of jobs intact for guys who wash private jets and create ice sculptures for Bat Mitzvahs...You got to think about the big picture champ!

 

Well, most would call that rich. Thank you for answering. I only asked because IMO, only the rich defend the rich, and vice versa so, I had to ask.

 

I think people get tired of this "just make sure the rich do great" attitude, over and above all else though. It's a crock.

 

Say that regime changes to direct democracy what are the wealthy going to do , bribe all of us ?

 

Not exactly a fresh point. You might as well say that the advantaged will always be advantaged, so long as they remain advantaged. :/ I don't think anyone really stands for the counterpoint that the poor are at an advantage.

 

See, I heard this before, in 1995. In 1995, we had this huge fight over welfare reform. The left all claimed that the poor would be pushed off welfare, and end up starving to death, and living under bridges.

What happened? Welfare Reform was passed in 1996, and the poor..... WENT TO WORK.

I can still remember this TV report, from Channel 10 News. I can still see this ladies face in my memory. This reporter asked this welfare queen, who had been living off welfare for years, how she was going to handle it when she was kicked off welfare.

The lady responded "Oh well be better off because we'll have more money from my job"

The reporter stunned.... stammered out "Oh... well... why didn't you do it sooner?"

The lady said "Because I didn't have to".

This is garbage. Welfare is a trap. A trap for poor people. The best way to hold the poor down, is trap them in a system of continuous impoverishment.

Did you know that 50% of all McDonald's corporate store managers, are people who started off as minimum wage burger flippers?
Did you know that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise stores, are owned and operated by people who started off at minimum wage flipping burgers?

They started out at an entry level job, and worked their way up.

Let me give you a hint sparky....... YOU CAN NOT WORK YOUR WAY UP LIVING ON WELFARE.

You want to hold the poor people down? Let them waste away on welfare. Good job leftist scum bags.... ruining poor people from coast to coast.

 

Everyone who has ever been on welfare is scum that is wasting away.

Give me a break. You want to help the poor, go to a poor neighborhood and teach some job training skills. Teach them how to use a computer at the library to apply for a job or class. Make a donation to the poor public school. Don't act like taking away welfare miraculously solves all low-income problems in this country.

 

You have a strange idea of what rich is. And I don't defend the rich so much as I object to the demonizing of perfectly moral and decent people who take nothing away from your opportunities to succeed.

 

In addition to personal charity, people who have should do many things for their community to include volunteering at schools and hospitals.

But I also believe that people who are able, should contribute to public service when they get welfare. They soon realize that a work for pay earns them more income AND more self respect.

 

That is a very insightful proposition. I wish conservatives would get that it isn't really their ideology we abhor, it is the lack of positive ideas. Rather than saying the poor are pieces of crap that don't deserve anything, take the high road and come up with solutions. That is all anyone wants in this country; solutions. Not ideology. We want things to improve.

 

No, the people who allow other people to waste away, are scum. They are simply taking advantage of the system *YOU* and those like you, allow. It's the left that is scum. The poor people are the ones trapped by typically rich people, into a life of poverty.

First, I bet I've done more than you have. Second, the public schools are not 'poor'. We spend far more on education, than most other nations that do far better than us academically. Third, experience and work ethic, is far more valuable than any job training ever is.