Georgism, also called Geoism (earth-ism), is an economic philosophy holding that all taxes should be replaced with A SINGLE TAX ON LAND VALUES.
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
americanaffairsjournal.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
“Progress and Poverty” full audio book: librivox.org
Other urls found in this thread:
Henry George advocated for replacing all taxes (income, sales, property, capital gains, interest, dividend, inheritance, tarriffs, etc) with A SIMPLE TAX ON LAND VALUES.
Because nobody creates the land or the wealth of the land. However, you did create the wealth of your own labor. You did create the wealth of your own property, investments, and the goods and services that you produce and buy/sell. Furthermore, when you tax productive activity and tax property created by human effort, you disincentivize productive activity. For example, a property tax punishes people for building nice homes. If your home is made out of brick, you will pay more property tax compared to a home made out of flimsy wood. If your home has 2 stories you will pay more property tax compared to a single-story house. If your home has tall ceilings you will pay more taxes compared to a home with low ceilings. If only the land was taxed, you would suffer no penalty for building a nice home and maintaining it well. Many slumlords deliberately keeps their properties in a state of disrepair and ugliness because maintaining their properties will increase their property taxes.
A tax on land values is the only tax with no deadweight loss. A "deadweight loss" is economic activity that fails to occur because of taxes (or regulation or some kind of economic interference). Property, sales, income, interest, dividend, and tarriff taxes all discourage a certain amount of productive economic activity, and this results in a deadweight loss for the economy. A land value tax does not discourage any economic activity and therefore does not result in a deadweight loss for the economy.
If you owned a plot of land that contains an amount of crude oil worth $1 billion, you would pay an annual tax of $10 million per year. You would have an incentive to extract the oil so you can pay the tax (and earn a profit). If you owned a 1/2 acre plot of land in a residential suburb worth $100,000, you would pay an annual tax of $1,000 per year. You would have an incentive to build a residential home or a small business such as a store or gas station. If you owned a plot of land in downtown Manhattan worth $100 million you would pay a tax of $1 million per year. You would have an incentive to build an office or apartment building. The land value tax incentivizes people to make efficient and productive use of their land, and punishes people who buy large tracts of land and refuse to develop it.
All commerce conducted with currency is fair game for taxation because it is engaged in voluntarily.
Land should never be taxed, because land is the minimum condition for survival - if you own land you can cultivate food to feed yourself, and produce wax, timber, leather, etc to sustain yourself.
I doesn't matter, because no tax is ever replaced. Taxes are not replaced, they are only augmented.
You would have an incentive to reduce the value of your land. Working to improve your land for generations would mean a greater and greater burden for your children.
Sounds extremely Jewish.
Nice theory, but taxes on sales/transactions result in a deadweight loss that reduces the amount of productive economic activity in the society. A land value tax is the ONLY tax that does not result in a deadweight loss.
Labor is a minimum condition of survival and that is taxed. Property is a minimum condition of survival and that is taxed. Buying/selling is a minimum condition of survival and that is taxed.
Or exploit it in a way which would make even the Chinese call greenpeace.
This is why a land-value tax can only come about through complete top-down reform of the entire Federal-state-local tax and budget system. Yes, it is possible.
And what do you say about the fact that the Federal Reserve and Income Tax were created within 1 year of each other?
Land-value taxation is opposed primarily by large land/real-estate owners and speculators. They are able to buy large tracts of land and either wait for the value to increase, or they rig the zoning laws to increase the value, or they print money and lower interest rates to increase the value. Banks also oppose land-value taxation because they want governments to borrow un-repayable sums of money and then burden the poor and middle class with taxes to pay the debt for eternity.
Environmental laws are a separate issue from taxation.
This is an utterly retarded idea.
99% of urbanite shitskins pay nothing, while white farmers get a good chunk of the burden (right alongside Shlomo, admittedly).
I'm not advocating for taxation. There should be no taxes. But sales tax > income/corporate tax > property tax. Land is never fair game to be taxed.
A land-value tax is progressive because it is a % of the land value. If your land is worth $5 Billion, you will pay more taxes than someone whose land is $5k, and someone who owns no land will pay no taxes.
The out of control welfare state is a totally separate issue.
Land is the ONLY thing that is fair game to be taxed. Land and its natural resources are the ONLY things that are NOT created by human effort and intelligence.
You own your body and should retain all rights to everything you create with your labor. You own your intelligence and should retain all rights to everything you create with your intelligence. But nobody's labor or intelligence creates the land or its natural resources. They will always exist even if humans don't exist.
By the way, land is already taxed, in addition to everything else. It is included as a part of property taxes. I am advocating for abolishing all other taxes except for a tax on land values.
Why does it existing as a natural entity make it more taxable? People are natural fauna, does that make us taxable?
Taxing land is taxing people for simply existing and being alive, because without land you can't survive.
Those are extremely Jewish as well.
Land value tax is anti-aristocratic, therefore Jewish and anti-Aryan. It is not surprising that Henry George was an American, America being an anti-Aryan Jewish nation.
Like I said before, many things that are necessary for survival are taxed, so "necessary for survival" is irrelevant.
Taxing land is best for society and this is the only thing that's important. Taxing wages and income reduces the total production of goods and services as well as total employment. Taxing capital gains reduces total capital accumulation. Taxing sales reduces commerce/employment. Taxing property reduces the supply of residential and commercial property. Taxing land results in ZERO loss for society.
Do aristocrats want what is best for society or not? If aristocrats don't want what is best for society, then I say that they were never aristocrats to begin with.
Typically, yes. Because their power is tied to the land itself, which incentivizes loyalty to the nation. Disloyalty only became a problem when wealth and power became (((financialized))) so that it was not tied to land but instead to currency and moveable capital. Land ownership being tied to power is inherently nationalist, so taxing it is a good way to incentivize rootless cosmopolitanism and moving the base of power to financial capital. That is why it is Jewish.
All this does is reward rootless globalists while punishing those who are the most invested in a community's success. Congratulations, you've just come up with a tax that Jews won't pay but nationalists will.
Heard for the first time of Georgism. I find the concept interesting and the underlying idea roughly plausible. Could you answer some questions?
In which way dispossession by fraud due to false calculations will be prevented?
The sole existance doesn't make it taxable claiming possession to the land and dismissing other's participation makes it taxable.
It's for the good of society to make the most productive use out of the available land. If "aristocrats" want to hoard all the land and not put it to good use, then everyone will suffer. Such a country would probably be conquered by a rival that is intelligent enough to make better use of its land.
If you want to regulate/eliminate fiat currency and fractional reserve lending that is a totally separate issue. That has nothing to do with a land-value tax.
The Cult of Maximum GDP rears its head again. Only Jews concern themselves with maximizing GDP. You obviously have no loyalities in the world other than to easily movable currency. You are exactly what the Bible warns about and why so many religions make usury a sin.
Currently, government assessors value land and property for the purposes of property taxes. I think this system is prone to corruption, and a better way would be public auctions. The value of a given plot of land could be determined by a public auction every 7 years or so. Maybe give people a choice. The government can assess the value, and if you don't like their number, you can have a public auction. You could also exempt 1 residence per family to prevent people from getting kicked out of their home if their village turns into a big city in 20 years.
The value of the land is separated from all improvements. Fire insurance companies do this all the time. They calculate what it would cost to rebuild the buildings/improvements in the event that they are totally destroyed.
Take a 40-story office building in NYC, that sells for $1 billion. If the office building were to burn down, collapse and need to be rebuilt at a cost of $600 million, then we can say that the land is worth $400 million.
Keep in mind that with a land-value tax, you owe the tax every year, regardless of whether or not you produce anything with the land. It would not make financial sense to purchase huge tracts of land in order to hoard mineral wealth because you need to pay the annual tax. Any land-owner would therefore have a compelling economic reason to cultivate the land in its most efficient use, whether it be farming, mining, residential housing, manufacturing, etc.
Let's say a farmer buys farmland for $100k, operates a farm for several years, and then personally discovers that it contains gold worth $1 Billion. The farmer can keep this a secret if he wants, and continue farming like normal. If he wants to extract the gold himself, we can have a rule that says that when you cultivate land, you have to declare the purpose. You can't buy farmland and then suddenly start digging out $1 Billion worth of gold. If he wanted to mine the gold he would need to have the value of the land officially re-assessed. If he is not willing or able to pay the land value tax on a gold mine, then the land would go to someone who is willing to pay the tax (obviously someone capable of actually mining the gold).
I don't know if GDP would be maximized by a land value tax. It probably would. The point of a land value tax is that it removes the burden of taxation from the poor and middle class. It levels the economic playing field between the classes. It is also impossible to evade, and you don't need armies of accountants and tax collectors to enforce it. Under-utilizing a society's natural resources hurts the poor and middle class because they need those resources in order to acquire personal wealth. The rich wouldn't give a flying fuck if the economy underutilized its land and natural resources because they already have all the wealth and power that they want.
Also, GDP is calculated by means of a survey. It's basically made up at this point and I don't care about GDP. A land value tax would promote maximum farming, mining and manufacturing. It would prevent rent price from spiraling out of control. It promotes a healthy, balanced, sustainable economy that is less prone to boom/bust cycles.
That way only rich kikes can own land!!!
Say goodbye to home ownership!!!
Say goodbye to "regular people" owning land!!
Furthermore, a huge portion of land is owned by farmers and forestry (tree farming).
Tax the food and building material growers enormously.
What could possibly go wrong?
And all that enormous civilizations-destroying shekel hoovering done by the "stock markets" and "money markets" and other such kike finance tricks, those barely own any land at all!!!
So they don't have to pay any taxes!!!
Furthermore, most "honest" money (ie not finance tricks) is produced by INDUSTRY which often (but not always) owns very little land.
Georgism.
Completely Retarded.
Foundationally, the economy is just people working to supply other peoples' needs and wants. "Money" means nothing on its own. Which is why (among other reasons) finance trickery is parasitic. The "stock markets" and "investment markets" were created as a means of investing in INDUSTRY and other money making endeavors (in the very beginning, to spread the cost of buying and supplying ships traveling to the orient for trade hundreds of years ago). The whole "stock trading" money scams are pure poison. They are all parasitic, other than "long term" investing (ie, actually investing in businesses).
All stocks and similar "money vehicles" should have a minimum holding time between trades. Something like a year. Other regulations as well, as necessary. The kikery must be brought to an end.
Taxation should focus on preventing the growth of the (((wealth class))) while supporting the growth of the middle class and the health and well being of the working class.
The (((wealth class))) (ie the super rich, who are heavily jewish) are the cause of most, if not all, of societies ills. Well, them and also diversity (which they support, partly as a means of diverting blame away from themselves for everything going to shit).
And no, this is not marxism.
marxism seek to replace the capitalist elite with a marxist elite while simultaneously eliminating the middle class. marxism essentially gives ALL the power to the "1%." marxism and finance capitalism are two sides of the same shekel.
Production capitalism, on the other hand, seeks to "trim" the (((wealth class))) in favor of a stronger and more powerful middle class and "working rich" class (business owners and operators rather than "investors") while simultaneously heavily regulating the finance sector to prevent it from becoming a parasitic money machine (which it is in most western countries today).
TLDR progressively tax the rich. Especially the "super rich."
End finance trickery.
Bubble up economics.
Production capitalism.
And yes, this taxes "success," but having money makes money. Capitalism is an inherently unstable system that will naturally gravitate to oligarchic despotism and monopolization unless it is heavily regulated to prevent such lopsided feedback loops.
However, the best thing that could be done for the economy right now is to remove non-Whites.
At the very least to remove blacks and browns.
The entire welfare apparatus has become a means of taking money out of the pockets of Whites and giving it to blacks and browns.
The economy must be tailored to the Volk's needs and towards the strength and prosperity of the Volk. First we must secure the existence of the Volk.
I'll take the bait.
A land value tax prevents excessive concentration of wealth. However, let's consider your extreme case. Let's say we have a land value tax and somehow one person owned 100% of the land. This one person would be responsible for paying 100% of the taxes in the country. In order to afford paying a tax on the value of literally all the land in the country, he would also have to own every single farm, mine, factory, house, office building, corporation, etc. And even if he owned all of society's productive capital, he would still have to pay people sufficient amounts to work for him to keep everything running. Those who work for him would not be taxed on any of their wages, property, capital gains, etc. They could start forming their own businesses or start buying property from the one guy who owns everything. Balance would be restored.
The status quo burdens homeowners with excess property taxes. A homeowner who has a sturdy, attractive house made out of brick pays more property taxes than a homeowner with an ugly house made out of plywood. If a homeowner improves their house by adding extra rooms, a basement, or an extra floor, they will be punished with higher property taxes. With a land-value tax, only the land is taxed, not the improvements. Home ownership is rewarded.
Farming and forestry would continue with a LVT. Moreover, farmers and lumberjacks would no longer have to pay income taxes or any other tax besides the tax on land. Let's say you had 400 acres of farmland in Iowa and this land is best for growing corn, as opposed to olives, oranges, cattle, etc. The average price of farmland in Iowa is $5,000 per acre. At a 1% Land value tax, the farmer would owe $20,000 per year. The average yield of farmland in Iowa is 202 bushels of corn per acre. Corn averaged $3.75 per bushel for the past few years. Let’s say your cost of production (seeds, water, equipment, labor, etc) is $2 per bushel. This means you would expect to make about $141k per year by growing corn on this land. You would pay $20k per year in land value taxes and would keep $121k per year.
All the legislatures of the Western world are prostitutes for the stock/money markets, yet they don't replace all taxes with a single tax on land values. Why? Because it would help the poor and middle class and put everyone on a level economic playing field. The billionaires and trillionaires don't want a simple tax on land values.
I agree that factories/industry would do great with a land-value tax. They would still pay taxes because a factory can easily use several acres of land, and the land they use would be in valuable locations near ports, rivers, railways, roads, airports, etc.
Yeah it's possible in the same way that winning the lottery three times in a row is possible.
Alot of people on this board talk about overthrowing the government and implementing a better system. Historically, such things happen every now and then. Wouldn't it be nice to know in advance about a superior tax system so we don't end up with something eerily similar to the shitshow we have now?
Nope. All taxes should be replaced with "fuck off and die, you shekel-grabbing snipdicks"
Incentive would be to clear cut the forest, build ramshackle tenements and stuff them full of tire-burning, street shitting untermensch and/or turn it into a landfill.
You would see people digging potholes into their streets to reduce their taxes by reducing their land value, and other perverse incentives.
You would have kike assessors taking people's homes by increasing the value assigned.
Right now Grandma can stay in her house she owns despite gentrification in the neighborhood. Gentrification increases value of the land her home sits on and she now can't afford to pay the taxes.
Furthermore you vastly underestimate what the tax on your land would be, because by default (since you proposed nothing else) it would be revenue neutral for the government.
I hope
And what prevents that from happening today? Environmental laws.
And what prevents that from happening today? Laws against damaging public property.
This is also a problem with the current property tax system. I believe a good solution is to allow someone to dispute the valuation by appealing to neutral 3rd parties, or by means of a public auction.
You can exempt 1 residence per family.
Replacing all taxes with a single tax on land values would not be revenue neutral, nor would we want it to be. The government wastes even more than the insane amount it taxes. We need the government to take less revenue. See the pic in the OP. Government spending as a % of GDP used to average less than 5% per year. Government provided everything we needed. That was a much more balanced system.
My logic and theories are not "bait"
I disagree with you completely.
I explained some of why.
Land taxes (as the only tax) would crush home ownership and push everyone into tiny condos (even more than now). You disagree. I disagree with your disagreement.
It would destroy rural land ownership by the non-wealthy.
Excessive concentration of wealth should be taxed. Land is not the only form of "wealth." Indeed, it is a fairly small part of "wealth" in the country.
Yet you would give non-land wealth a free pass.
Sounds like a guaranteed way to lead to a non-land owning financial aristocracy (again, even more than now).
So create a radically new tax program with one of the motivations for doing so being "simplicity."
Requires enormous regulatory oversight to attempt to prevent massive incentives to screw with land wealth being acted upon.
hmmmm…..
Also, now your saying to massively shrink the government in addition to radically alter the tax systems.
hmmm….
Terrible idea, imo.
No, it does not crush home ownership or single-family homes, and at this point you need to provide evidence for that claim. Skip to 23:30 of this video for info about the LVT in Delaware. youtube.com
What should we do about Satoshi's bitcoins? What percentage of them belong to the government?
Yes, because it turns out that it's better for the poor, the middle class and all of society to only tax land values.
A land-valued tax is a guaranteed way to maximize the size and wealth of the middle class. Wealthy people will always exist, but if you want to make them go away there's always communism.
No.
Explain to us how YOU would profit by screwing with land wealth, if given the opportunity.
Absolutely.
Why should landowners see their taxes shoot up because suddenly it's worth more?
Do people really own their money or do they only own what the government allows them to own?
Before you start talking about theoretical tax modes, you should start talking about the purpose of taxation and the purpose of government in relation to the governed.
Is the purpose of taxation to:
- Punish societal damaging behavior
- Fund government actions
- Control production
- Control consumption
Is the purpose of government to:
- Protect the governed
- Exploit the governed
If the purpose of the government is to protect the governed, property tax This includes any form of licensing, income tax, sales tax on essential foodstuffs and non-degenerate equipment does the exact opposite.
The only forms of tax that are permissible in a protective government are tariffs and taxes on exploitative business models including addictive drugs and investment banking.
If the purpose of the government is to exploit the governed, all tax is permissible and necessary.
This "single tax on land values" is exploitative at best, because it forces the governed to pay to exist.
Because their land is increasing in value due to the businesses, roads, plumbing, electricity, and other infrastructure that is being built up around them. The land value tax incentivizes people to put their land to productive use, rather than buying a bunch of land, doing nothing with it, waiting for other people and the government to build nice things around it, then flipping the land for a fat profit, while contributing absolutely nothing to the construction and maintenance of the surrounding infrastructure.
Let's say you purchase a 1-acre plot of land in 1618 Manhattan for the price of one teakettle. And let's say you hold it for 400 years without building anything on it and sell it for $500 million. That $500 million in value is 100% the result of everyone else's labor and intelligence building the surrounding businesses, residences, utilities and infrastructure. During the entire 400 years you contributed 0 taxes towards the construction and maintenance of the city, yet you were able to make $500 million from everyone else's work and taxes.
The land-value tax prevents un-earned wealth from land speculation by requiring land-owners to pay an annual tax every year based on the value of the land. You wouldn't be able to hold un-developed land while a city grows around it and then flip the land for a fat profit. Because you would be required to pay a tax every year based on the land's value. You would be economically compelled to work the land or sell it to someone who will work the land.
Now lets apply your hypothetical situation to a family home.
In your world, the family would eventually be pushed out by the government, who would deracinate both the family and the history of the land.
Now imagine this happens to every family in a nation.
What would those people become?
Kikes.
This is the only valid purpose of taxation in my opinion.
This is the purpose of government in my opinion.
If you tax something, that means you support its continued existence, because you are allowing it to exist and making money from it. If something is harmful to society, it should be illegal, not taxed.
Instead of tariffs, I prefer simply banning the import or export of entire categories of goods. For example, no importing steel, no importing cars, etc. Or no exporting computers, or no exporting military equipment. This would protect strategic industries and prevent the leakage of military equipment and technology that could be used against us. I don't like tariffs because they have a tendency to devolve into chaotic political games that can lead to wars.
Allowing the wealthy to hoard all the land and continuously jack up the rent is also exploitative. A land value tax prevents the hoarding of land, restores balance between the poor, middle class and wealthy, it maximizes employment and maximizes the size and wealth of the middle class.
Holy Fuck.
Better tax air, sex, birth, death, etc.
If you don't tax those, you hate your people!
You are at best, a fool.
Cities will continue to exist as long as mankind exists.
In your hypothetical world, the middle class would be unable to own land in a city because the taxes would rise lockstep with the value of the surrounding properties.
The result is that everyone that cannot own the entire apartment highrise and extract the tax payments from their rentals, rents.
Doesn't that sound familiar.
Only one tax
Ten percent of income
So ten lercent of your wage
Or ten percent of any good or service you sell
The government just issues money as it needs to to pay for goods and services.
Is only allowed to create money to pay for goods and services actually created.
Ez pz its been figured out before
Interest free governement fiat
Good luck with that. Let me know if your "modern military" survives one mile into texas or arkansas.
And furthermore, making something illegal does not remove it from society.
- 1920's prohibition
- Cannabis prohibition
- Narcotic prohibition
- Sex worker prohibition
Government education against these things doesn't even successfully eliminate these things, and often times drives more people to make use of them.
Taxation of societally damaging things allows the government to expand enforcement lockstep with their use. Look at ATF
You throw out these ideas and become so tunnel visioned that you cannot accept that your core concepts are faulty.
This is 1000x better than what you propose.
Sage for low intelligence kike posting OP.
1) We can and should exempt 1 residence per family.
2) A LVT promotes dense cities surrounded by farmland and countryside. For a farmer to get kicked off his land would mean that he was farming close to a town center that grew into a large city, or that valuable minerals were discovered under his land. It is to the benefit of society that he make the most economically valuable use of his land. There are many places where you can have a farm, but not many places that have natural harbors, or have crude oil, copper, etc. It is in the farmer's interest to go along with this natural growth process because more population and more trade means more demand for his crops and more goods and services that he can purchase with his crops.
3) If the government decides that the farmer's land has increased in value and that he needs to pay more taxes or else leave the land, the government would not kick him off the land until they have found someone who is willing and able to pay the higher taxes (otherwise the land would be abandoned and the government would make $0 revenue). The new land-owner would be required to compensate the farmer for reasonable relocation expenses. It's in the government's interest to have stability, rather than people being constantly kicked off their land.
(((You)))
"Tax exemptions" indicate that the basis of your concept is faulty.
The north won the civil was because of its industrial and numerical superiority. The Allies won WWI and WWII because of industrial and numerical superiority. I sincerely hope you're only pretending to be retarded.
Nice thread OP. I've been an advocate of Land Value Tax ever since learning about it.
Taxing wages requires the government to spy on workers and businesses.
Taxing sales requires the government to spy on buyers and sellers.
Taxing land requires the government to know who owns what land and collect the money.
Lolbertarians love arguing about taxes and will shit up any discussion without providing an real answers. Never mind that Adam Smith said "Nothing can be more reasonable" about Land Value Tax (he calls them ground-rents).
In the modern world the Single Tax should include any government granted monopoly. Like radio spectrum, etc.
Or you can not exempt it. A land value tax is still the best possible form of taxation and is infinitely better than the shitshow we have today where LAND, property, wages, income, capital gains, retail sales, interest, dividends, inheritance, etc are all taxed and the average American has less than $1000 to their name. And in case you haven't noticed, the middle class is CRUSHED by the current status quo, and people get kicked out of their homes for not being able to afford PROPERTY taxes all the time.
Thanks! We need to shill the LVT hard. We fought Great Britain over tiny taxes and look at us now. The LVT is the way forward.
Hmmmmm…… This could also be a solution to the intellectual property problem. Have IP holders pay the government for the right to benefit from their copyrights and patents or else lose them to the highest bidder.
Property taxes are the fairest kind of taxes. They tax wealth rather than income or consumption. Unfortunately the banks own most of the actual property in the US and have no intention of paying property taxes - that is passed along to the poor mortgage holders. Of course this would encourage people to live within their means, which could not hurt.
Property taxes are total bullshit. You are punished for building quality, aesthetic property, and rewarded for building ugly trash. If your home is made out of brick, you will pay more property tax compared to a home made out of flimsy plywood. If your home has 2 stories you will pay more property tax compared to a single-story house. If your home has tall ceilings you will pay more taxes compared to a home with low ceilings. If only the land is taxed, you would suffer no penalty for building a nice home and maintaining it well. You would suffer no penalty for adding extra rooms, a basement, a 2nd floor, or shed, garage or a guesthouse. Many slumlords deliberately keeps their properties in a state of disrepair and ugliness because maintaining their properties will increase their property taxes.
Resulting in a deadweight loss that reduces total employment.
Resulting in a deadweight loss that reduces the total amount of goods and services produced/bought/sold
The ancient Romans tried it. Resulted in hyperinflation. BUT IT WILL WORK THIS TIME!!!
Stop. You're going full retard.
Yes, literally every country that has had their currency collapse has figured it out before.
Nah, see that's the problem. We don't need Frederick Taylor style improvements, because that's what's gotten us into this mess in the first place (t. Kaczynski et al). Furthermore, developing a fiscal policy around one single type of tax limits the ability of the government to adapt. The third position approach is 'whatever is good for the people,' not 'whatever aligns with my abstract economic principles of choice.' Whinging about deadweight loss is doing exactly that. If, for example, the state decided to radically deindustrialise for whatever reason, and tried to shrink GDP every year by x%, every economist would have their little theory about how wasteful it is and how inefficient and stupid and so on. But the point of such a policy is that the economy serves the people and not the other way around.
That is my exact criteria. It just so happens that a land value tax is best for the people.
All those things are wealth. Every other kind of tax is regressive to some extent. Taxing only the land overlooks the jew who builds 700 high rise condos on 1/4 of an acre of land. The value is altered by improvements, therefore the taxes go up.
If you choose to define things thusly, fine by me, but don't expect everyone else to agree. Theoretically aristocracy is rule by the best (aristos=best, noble) but I don't hear any Habsburgs or Hohenzollerns protesting the rape of Europe.
I am ignorant of the details of this land value thing, but would that not encourage everyone to pollute / stripmine / invite nindunuffins to loiter? This would make the land less valuable and lower the taxes, right?
What would incentivise the people to just leave the land as it is, or in the case of developed and semi-developed property what would incentivise them to reintroduce wilderness there? Especially if we let the market decide value, then pristine old growth forest would be pretty expensive property.
Just admit that you don't understand economics or how the current tax status quo is impoverishing the middle class.
Why would someone build a high-rise condo on top of land that contained crude oil, instead of an oil well? Why would someone build a high-rise condo on top of land next to a harbor, instead of a shipyard? Why would someone build a high-rise condo on agricultural land 100 miles outside of the city where the population density is only 2 people per square mile, instead of a farm? The land-value tax encourages people to use land in the most productive way. The economy is alot more rational than you give it credit for.
Environmental laws. Same thing we use right now to prevent environmental damage.
The problem here being that you have a predetermined notion of how land should be used. Why must the resources be exploited? It's not necessarily bad that we do exploit resources, given that that's what separates us from other animals. But neither is it bad to own large plots of land as a matter of preservation.
There are a few ways to incentivize people to leave land fallow and allow the wilderness to return. 1) You could section off land and restrict it from use. 2) There could be a minimum tax per acre, such that it is too expensive to buy up all the cheap rural/wilderness land unless you have a valid productive use. 3) You could place limits on how much acreage one person is allowed to own. 4) for land that is good for timber harvesting, you can outlaw clear-cutting like they do today. You can use environmental laws to protect wilderness land.
Why are you opposed to tariffs and taxes on vices like alcohol/cigarette production? I wholeheartedly oppose income tax, wish to destroy the welfare state, hang the Fed chairmen and return to a time where taxes are minimal, but I see no reason why to limit ourselves to property tax.
The "bad" thing that a LVT prevents is endlessly rising rents that squeeze the life out of the poor and middle class and enrich a tiny minority that owns the land and refuses to allow other people to build homes, farms, mines, factories, businesses on the land. If people had to pay an annual tax on all of the land they owned, they would be forced to make productive use out of it or sell it to someone who will use it productively. Productively using the land creates jobs and wealth for the poor and middle class, thereby re-balancing the poor, middle class and the rich. The amount of land/resource exploitation that will occur will be proportional to the population and their needs.
Hell no. I'm talking about a land value tax, not a property tax in any way shape or form.
I prefer to outlaw the import/export of entire categories of goods. This is better for protecting strategic industries. Tariffs can easily turn into a clusterfuck. See my response here
I don't consider tobacco or alcohol to be vices. I oppose taxes on drugs or prostitution because if they are going to be legal, then the government should leave them un-taxed like any other legal business. A tax on hookers and blow still results in a deadweight loss for society just like any other income or sales tax, and it also results in an invasive state apparatus chasing down drug dealers and hookers demanding that they show proof of how many dime bags they sold or how many tricks they turned. Just tax the land.
Lets replace all taxes with a tax on non white people at 100% of their earnings. Solves a lot of problems.
There's a material difference between having no incentive to care about the land value / sustainability (as is now) vs having an active incentive to destroy the land value however possible (as in your proposed tax plan).
Wrong. What prevents that now is that people don't want fucking potholes. In your system, people would have a perverse financial incentive to degrade things. "Digging potholes" is just an example of one type of blight. People would have an active incentive to blight their land in any number of ways. This problem does not exist now.
Again, materially different given that current property tax is typically 1-3% of valuation, and usually exists only to fund local public schools and a handful of other things. What you propose is a tax on land value that is intended to replace all local, state, and federal taxation in one fell swoop.
Describe in detail what would no longer be funded. I presume you would zero out social security, medicare, the military, welfare, foreign aid, farm subsidies, public education, etc. If so, then describe in detail how you plan to shift the overton window to make any of that remotely tenable.
As it stands now, you need to pay taxes on your labor. Do you currently have an incentive to cut off your right arm so that you cannot earn as much, so that you don't have to pay as much taxes?
Henry George tried to popularize a single tax on land values but he failed to be elected to any powerful office. We have to accept that the overton window cannot be shifted on every issue, even though we may be factually and morally correct. My goal is to educate people about the superiority of a land value tax, so that in case any of the aristocratic intellectuals of this board ever acquire a powerful office capable of sweeping tax and fiscal reform, they and and their supporters will know what to do.
A single tax on land values could easily fund the military, roads, courts, and other essential government services specified in article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.
Your plan is moronic. Worst single taxation system I have ever examined. Did your daddy Mordechai tell you this was a good idea at temple?
If you would only think about what you're proposing you would understand why it's faulty from the foundation up.
Unless of course (((You))) want to sway the more pliable of Zig Forums into accepting your kike taxation ideals.
Land and property are 2 separate things. Read this post:
If you own it, it's property.
Land tax is property tax.
Unless you think that you can't own land, in which case:
Instead of obfuscating your intention of government land seizure through raising tax rates, why don't you just tell the truth and say that private property should be abolished and replaced with limited lifetime leases.
When you scam workers comp… you're not supposed to actually cut off your arm. You're supposed to make the government believe that you did.
Good. Labor should not be taxed anyway. The ease of evading taxes on labor is one of many reasons why we should not tax it.
You can't hide land. You can't lie about who is utilizing the land. A land value tax is impossible to evade. The only way a land value tax could be cheated is to make the government believe that the land is less valuable than it is. But if you own farmland, and you're paying taxes as if it's regular farmland, but the government sees you drilling for crude oil on it, they're going to know that something's up.
Maybe in a philosophical sense, but not for tax purposes. For tax purposes "Land" and "Property" are 2 different things. "Property." means man-made improvements to land. "Property" is the part that can be insured by fire insurance. See this post for a discussion of the difference between land value vs property value
If you weren't retarded, you'd be aware that you already pay taxes on land. It's included in property taxes (pic related). I am advocating abolishing all taxes except land value taxes. This would restore your full ownership over your labor, property, capital, inheritance, etc.
The Crown owns, by law, all the land in the whole kingdom. The King and his Court determine the best use of land. He manipulates his vassals through dynastic land contracts as he sees fit, and arranges tax policy according to state demands.
To this: retard
How do you feel about your superior taxation method spying on you in this way:
ORLY. Pic very related.
You argue like an autistic lolberg that found a new target.
You still can't argue against
And until you can, you will never sway anyone.
I'm probably making a verbal error when I say "Property." For tax purposes, Property value = Land value + Building value. In the current status quo you already pay taxes on land value. It's included in property taxes (pic related). I am advocating abolishing all taxes except land value taxes. This would restore your full ownership over all of your labor, buildings, capital, inheritance, etc.
AHAHAHAHA HE DELETED POSTS BECAUSE HE'S SUCH A FAGGOT.
Fuck off faggot.
is an edited version of >>11707750
This faggot can't even argue in good faith.
I saw an error in my argument and made a better post. Sometimes it takes a long time for people to respond. I had no reason to believe my post was even seen.
>>>/reddit/
If deleting a post is so wrong they should remove that feature.
You are the one one has disorganized posts with lists of nit-picky pints and doesn't have a clear, logical argument.
You're literally defending an insane status quo that has impoverished the middle class of the wealthiest nation in the world. You are a fucking joke.
You are so fucking stupid that you would get rid of all the Jews, but not get rid of all the taxes on labor, sales, property, income, capital gains, interest, dividends, inheritance, etc. You can't even figure out why the average American has less than $1000 to their name. Who needs Jews when there's Hwhite men like you?
One post schlomo.
This is now a Hitler appreciation thread.
Property tax is total bullshit, it means you never own your own land. Don't pay the tax and the government steals your house out from under you.
You are so fucking stupid that even if you had a time machine and went back in time to advise Hitler you wouldn't even be able to tell him what to do to save Germany. You'd be like:
Hitler's economy was no different from basic Keynesianism.
I've made my terms clear through my posts. It is you who cannot answer my demands.
All you have to do is explain how to apply your taxation method to all citizens without harming healthy, fruitful white society, as well as protecting traditional white society structure without "tax exemptions" and obtuse tax code.
All white men build.
Increasing taxation based on land improvement restricts the natural tendencies of white men.
If all white men build next to each other the land tax will exceed their ability to pay, meaning they will have to relocate their family and start over.
If a government were to implement this form of taxation, the common man would be nothing more than cattle to be rotated in the fields of undeveloped regions.