Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

The value of land is enhanced by the infrastructure paid for by the landowner. No one has a natural right to land or any other property. Beyond ones own body and the public space one exists in, there is no natural right to anything.

 

Does that demonstrate that rahl didn't make a non sequitur? Having some trouble following the conversation? It seems like well over half the time you reply to something you forget what's in question.

 

Of course I didn't make a non sequitur. I'm not the one comparing land to slavery, lol

 

I found this to be an interesting admission. Rather than referring to land ownership in general (which you have to do if you're going to peddle the LVT snake oil), there's this "its just the filthy rich" vagueness. Wonder what "filthy rich" criteria is being used. And wonder how a Georgist could make it sound relevant, given really they have to target all land owners (in particular owner occupiers)

 

Also, there are plenty of eminent economists who recognize the advantages of the LVT:

"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'."

&#8212;Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate in Economics (1970)

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."

&#8220;I share your view that taxes would be best placed on the land, and not on improvements...&#8221;

"Yes, there are taxes I like. For example, the gasoline tax, which pays for highways. You have a user tax. The property tax is one of the least bad taxes, because it's levied on something that cannot be produced &#8212; that part that is levied on the land.

&#8212; Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics (1976)

"It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of government revenue. Some persons who could make excellent use of land would be unable to raise money for the purchase price. Collecting rent annually provides access to land for persons with limited access to credit.&#8221;

&#8212; Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate in Economics (1985)

"The user of land should not be allowed to acquire rights of indefinite duration for single payments. For efficiency, for adequate revenue and for justice, every user of land should be required to make an annual payment to the local government equal to the current rental value of the land that he or she prevents others from using."

&#8212; Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics, 1987

&#8220;Assuming that a tax increase is necessary, it is clearly preferable to impose the additional cost on land by increasing the land tax, rather than to increase the wage tax &#8212; the two alternatives open to the City (of Pittsburgh). It is the use and occupancy of property that creates the need for the municipal services that appear as the largest item in the budget &#8212; fire and police protection, waste removal, and public works. The average increase in tax bills of city residents will be about twice as great with wage tax increase than with a land tax increase.&#8221;

&#8212; Herbert Simon (1978 ), Nobel laureate in Economics

"The landowner who withdraws land from productive use to a purely private use should be required to pay higher, not lower, taxes."

&#8212; James Buchanan,
Professor of economics and winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize;
from a lecture at St. Johns University, New York City

"While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies &#8212; taxes on such things as incomes, sales, and the value of capital goods."

&#8220;It (land value taxation) guarantees that no one dispossess fellow citizens by obtaining a disproportionate share of what nature provides for humanity.&#8221;

"Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects."

&#8212; William Vickrey, Nobel laureate in Economics (1996)
and past president of the American Economics Association

"I think in principle it's a good idea to tax unimproved land, and particularly capital gains (windfalls) on it. Theory says we should try to tax items with zero or low elasticity, and those include sites."

&#8212; James Tobin (1981), Nobel laureate in Economics

"The main, underlying idea of Henry George is the taxation of land and other natural resources. At the time, people thought, "not really that too," but what was underlying his ideas is rent associated with things that are inelastically supplied, which are land and natural resources. And using natural resource extraction and using land rents as the basis of taxation is an argument that I think makes an awful lot of sense because it is a non-distortionary source of income and wealth. ...

... The question is: "Would it be better if we had more taxation of land and natural resource, and more revenue from natural resource management, and I would include atmosphere and spectrum." And less tax on income and savings. And I would say, "Yeah." And I think many economists would agree with that. So, if you want to sell it as a "Single Tax," then, no, you won't get anyone to agree that there's enough revenue there. If you look at is a more "central" tax, then, yes, you will get most economists to agree with you.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in Economics (2001)
in 2002 interview

 

A list of quotes which essentially says "property and land taxes can be used". Unfortunately Georgists have constructed a list and made the bogus claim that economics therefore supports their agenda. The interesting aspect of course is that Roy makes it clear that he thinks modern economics is nonsense, but then gladly refers to modern economists (such as his tacit support for the "vertical phillips curve, plus negative income tax" Friedman)

 

And yet the overwhelming majority agree with me and laugh at Georgists

 

Reported. The idea of the land value tax predates Henry George and the proposal has changed since then too. Supporting the land value tax doesn't make one a Georgist. Otherwise Thomas Paine was a Georgist because he supported land value taxation, and he died over 20 years before Henry George was even born. "Georgist" is therefore intended as nothing but name calling and a personal insult.

 

No! I am having no trouble at all. Sometimes I respond to other people than you, but so far in this thread, you are the only one who doesn't understand the subject and its meaning. You are the only one who has claimed that the landowner has not justified the infrastructure or that any person has some mystical natural right to something.

 

You have never mopped the floor with anyone, not even a non compus mentis. The fallacies around here are strictly yours, especially supporting a system which is much worse than the one we have, that will not provide any more or better taxation, will not give any more people the right to use land and will not control the use of land any better than it already is. So you think Rahl is not very good at this? So far he has done a lot better than you with your smart acre comments.

 

Let me clarify something should anyone have misunderstood one of my comments. When I terminate a post with "Naptime!" I mean specifically that I am going to take a nap. It is not intended to mean anything negative about my fellow posters. If anyone has taken offense believing I was being curt or dismissive, I apologize. At 78 years old I need a nap every day, sometimes 2, but usually about 1 hour between 5PM and 7PM is my traditional naptime.