Tax Land Not Man

This is not a correct way to look at a land tax. federal property /= common property. George said this:

"We do not propose to assert equal rights to land by keeping land common, letting any one use any part of it at any time. We do not propose the task, impossible in the present day of society, of dividing land in equal shares; still less the yet more impossible task of keeping it so divided.
"We propose–leaving land in the private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part to give, sell or bequeath it–simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it….We would accompany this tax on land values with the repeal of all taxes now levied on the products and processes of industry–which taxes, since they take from the earnings of labor, we hold to be infringements of the right of property"

Land is law made property so it is not a "natural right"

Attached: commonvsstateprop.jpg (1695x961, 778.03K)

Completely false.

Capitalism:

Your system:

Truthfully, only Libertarianism offers a solution rooted in nature: it’s yours for as long as you can kill any motherfucker who tries to take it.

But it actually is. I buy a piece of property, whether it be a house on a 1/8 acre lot in the suburbs, or 200+ acres in the mountains. Once I paid it off completely and hold the deed, I STILL don't "own" it, because the big bad government can come and take it away at any time for failure to pay "property taxes". Sounds a LOT like being evicted for failure to pay rent. So you never really OWN the land, IE: once I pay for it, NO ONE can come take it away from me without my consent. Any form of property tax where you can become homeless out of property YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is wrong on every single level.

Attached: cagiva drift.jpg (960x614, 48.72K)

The idea is pointless. There is nothing worth spending tax revenue on: all things can and have been provided by markets. To collect taxes requires a government, and besides any moral posturing about the use of violence and killing to collect taxes from an unconsenting population, Theseus no ignoring the fact that the government's tendency to expansion. Because it is allowed to kill citizens to collect land taxes, it has little trouble (and great incentive) to tax everything else. Income wasn't taxed until it was. It happens.

Furthermore, land value is created. Landlords have an incentive to increase the value of their land and regulate its health and cleanliness so that their renters (farmers etc.) are more productive in the long run and can pay rent consistently. If you tax land based on its prpductivity, you're just incentivizing polution and diminishment. I believe this notion that the value of "land" is completely random and not tied to the work of its steward comes from either the urban elite or just regular idiots.

You dont actually own it under the current system either. You are still renting it from the government(property tax) along side paying them out the ass for every other thing you do in life from consumption to recreation to investments.

Under Georgism the only thing you pay is that rent. No more salse tax no more income on more cap gains

Attached: locked.jpg (500x651, 150.91K)

Most of the value added to land is from location and community contributions. You could build a luxury high rise in the middle of a desert but if you can lobby the government to spend community money on infrastructure your high rise will still be less valuable than a 500 sqft room in Manhattan

...

No this is why we need to ONLY tax land and NOTHING else

Exactly, and that's my problem. Do away with the entire concept of taxing land, and I'm cool. Once I pay for it, I should be able to quit my stressful job that I need to pay for a house/property, and get a fun job that only needs to keep the lights on and feed myself. No more fear of "rent" in ANY form. The current system means once I pay for it, I'm STILL paying for it, forever.

this tbh
reminds me of
>youtube.com/watch?v=DY7VxjDJG50
The only way to 'own' land is to kill for it. To do that, you're going to need an army.

Yes but i'm sure you acknowledge the need for at least a minimally funded state?

Attached: ancaplol.jpg (647x820, 46.43K)

Taxes are not necessary to fund the state. Taxes are only a tool to reduce the money supply.

absolutely. I'm no ancap faggot. Get it from tariffs, income taxes, sales taxes, VAT taxes, there are a million other means.

What option does someone have who wants to buy land to homestead, and be self-sufficent with minimal contact with the outside world/pol/ dream? The story of the "family farm being lost to the tax man" is not hyperbole. You need a square job to afford the homestead, but once the homestead is paid for, you still need the job to pay the taxes on it! So you never really get to be "off-the-grid" unless you wanna live like sub-saharan Africans. So change the system so that one can own their own little piece of the world and can tell the rest of it to go fuck itself. That's pretty much impossible now for anyone but the hyper-wealthy. There's a reason it's called "fuck you money".

You support a land value tax and watch as unused rural land becomes dirt fucking cheap. You take yourself and your Tradthot wife to the country, buy a basically free plot of land and pay almost 0 taxes on it forever then you build what ever the fuck you want and never have to worry about it increasing your tax burden.

An LVT would almost 100% be paid by those who hold more valuable urban land

Developing that land = increasing value on that land = increasing tax burden.

Somewhere there is a missing step, I am sure of it.

a land value tax falls on the unimproved value of the land

So I could buy tons of unused, raw desert, develop it to my heart's content, then only pay taxes on the unimproved value of the land?

Seriously, this makes no sense. What is to stop someone from doing something like that?

how would you pay the tax? At some point you'll pass equilibrium right?

SHOO SHOO THIEVING JEW

Attached: taxation.jpg (519x544, 28.18K)

LAND TAX MEANS NO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
"Property tax" (land "tax") is enforced through the courts as a jobs program for lawyers (jews). Every year, the lawyers (jews) in your county file a lein (claim to ownership) on your "property" (land). This is how the "tax" is enforced. If you do not pay your "property" (land) "taxes", which, unlike every other "property" you "own", has a fluctuating value based on the "value" of your neighbor's and larger community member's "property" (land), you will have your "property" (land) taken away, thus, establishing that the true or new "property" (land) "owner" is the county/state. If you have to pay an annual fee ("tax") to "own" your "property" (land), then you do not "own" it. Further, if you do not "own" your "property" (land), and it is actually the county/state that "owns" it, then why were you ever expected to pay a n annual fee ("tax") on that "ownership"; the "proprty" (land) "owner" should pay that expense.
LAND TAX MEANS NO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

held in commons /= owned by the state

people are free to buy/sell/use however they see fit

"unimproved land value" drives the tax assessment, you said so yourself, so I would only be paying tax on raw, dead desert, since that's what the land would be in its unimproved state.

This guy gets it.

user, "user" "fees" are libertarian cancer. If we accept such cancer, one day, a blockchain public ledger will be used to "manage" "user" "fees" for "travel" (sidewalk/road "acccess"). And to "enforce" these "fees" the "community" will employ "force" by preventing "travel" (sidewalk/road"acces"), by issuing a financial "penalty" (theft), or by imprisonment (violence).

What do non-land owners pay ?

I wonder (((who))) would be promoting taxation at all?

This nonsense has been puked up on this board before, and shown to be crap then, as it still is now.
Tax land, if you want, but do NOT tax any contiguous property, for any head of household, that's 30 acres or under. This is a homestead, and the cornerstone of freedom.

Land ownership equates directly to freedom, as it gives an individual resources to live off of when times are bad, and resources regardless of how any employer feels about him.
It also shows the local government that they have no right to charge people rent on land those people already legally own, and it removes their power to confiscate said land.
And eliminate "eminent domain" too, while we're at it.

Attached: Red7.jpg (600x900, 86.38K)

How is the land value is set again?

So it is communism lite?

This. Georgism may have worked when it was proposed. Not now.

Not in the least.
Unimproved farmland is in demand because you grow food on it, it is four or five times more valuable than unimproved mountain land, for instance.

Taxes make land cheaper in the short run simply by passing the extra cost to the taxes, those buying the land still pay the price, and with land taxes they pay it every year or lose their property, instead of paying it once and that's it.

But what if the person's homestead is on the border and we need to build a wall? We'd have to eminent domain their ass.

And what about roads? Who's gonna pay for the roads?

Taxation on property is essentially telling the people purchasing the property that they really can never truly own it. It’s antithetical to everything the United States was meant to be.

As for schools. If you charged the parents directly, the quality of education would go up, and you would definitely have a greater interest in the education of the children on the parents part.

The only smart tax is a sales tax- You're already prepared to pay money for something so 1 or 2% extra isn't too bad, especially if you have hard legislation that sets an upper limit on it. Without a band of banking jews devouring your country's prosperity you don't need all the other taxes that exist and a 2% sales tax on all goods, or a 5% sales tax on just luxury goods could fund the fire/police/military/etc. that actually needs money.
Furthermore, for a balkanized union such as the U.S, states (and for euroland, regions) would collect tax from their residents and pay from their portion to any federal/central authority- the federal never can tax the individual man.

Attached: German-pin-up-1.jpg (558x720, 36.45K)

THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF I DONT PAY THE LAND TAX?\ the government takes it away with lotta men with lotsa gunz
IF I PAY RENT ON LAND ITS NOT MINE> Once I paid it off completely and hold the deed, I STILL don't "own" it, because the big bad government can come and take it away at any time for failure to pay "property taxes". Sounds a LOT like being evicted for failure to pay rent. So you never really OWN the land, IE: once I pay for it, NO ONE can come take it away from me without my consent. Any form of property tax where you can become homeless out of property YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is wrong on every single level.

Take me with a grain of salt (because I'm talking out of my ass), but what if the land value tax is like paying for a normal property now? Pay for it all at once or over several years/decades, and then the property is completely yours, no strings attached? The issue with that is, once everyone's paid off their land, where is the government gonna get tax money? I suppose there could also be a sales tax, to cover downturns in property buying. The government would have to downsize and become more efficient, which is definitely a good thing.

Personally I think eminent domain is necessary, but still kind've bullshit. As long as its within reason and the homeowner is well-paid, I can deal with it.
As for the roads, the companies and corporations and rich folks with big properties would pay for them. If you really wanna tax the homesteader while you're at it, you could always have sales tax for them.

The government can stop spending so much money, that’s a start.

Sounds like an agrarian take on fascism.

You can't discuss this here, the board is full of children spouting "if I pay tax it is just renting!11111" not realizing that is already the case because they are children and do not own property. Land tax REDUCES the problem you faggot retards are crying about, it doesn't create it. Right now your "rent" is for your land and your fucking house. Changing it to only be on the land is an improvement.

Fundamentally this is a question of whites vs jews. Whites work, so they want to be free to work, hence they oppose taxing their work via income tax, sales tax, etc. Jews do not work, they rent-seek. Since they want to be paid for simply owning things without ever doing anything productive, they oppose taxes on rent-seeking like land value tax and any other natural monopoly taxes.

They can charge a fee for an actual service someone uses, only when they actually use it, and only charge the person using it.
You may have seen this system successfully in action for thousands of years somewhere before.

Attached: taxconsent.jpg (480x471, 40.51K)

it's funny that you would ever believe such a thing is possible without violently overthrowing them

LAND TAX MEANS NO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
"Property tax" (land "tax") is enforced through the courts as a jobs program for lawyers (jews). Every year, the lawyers (jews) in your county/state file a lien (claim to "ownership") on your "property" (land). This is how the "tax" is enforced. If you do not pay your "property" (land) "taxes", which, unlike every other "property" you "own", has a fluctuating "value" based on the "value" of your neighbor's and larger community member's "property" (land), you will have your "property" (land) taken away, thus, establishing that the true or new "property" (land) "owner" is the county/state. If you have to pay an annual fee ("tax") to "own" your "property" (land), then you do not "own" it. Further, if you do not "own" your "property" (land), and it is actually the county/state that "owns" it, then why were you ever expected to pay an annual fee ("tax") on that "ownership"; the "property" (land) "owner" should pay that expense.
LAND TAX MEANS NO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
There shall only be a 20% "extraction ("sales") "tax" on "resources".

Attached: lands.jpeg (990x495, 74.65K)

Everyone rent seeks. That’s the nature of the system. That’s why civilizations collapse, because everyone rent seeks to a degree. It’s just to what degree that occurs.

The point isn’t to avoid the behavior, it’s craft the system so that it doesn’t promote it. If I had the peace, I would have already written how to do this out. You cucks are too busy playing your stupid games though.

Attached: correct.png (1024x565, 57.82K)

Libertarian RAUS !

Nice doublethink. Tax on land means that you dont own it, but rent it from state

The problem with that is all it takes is a single piece of shit rich guy to turn someone into a rent seeker just to survive.

Enough drugs and hypnosis and you too can have disgusting people sodomizing you in the street in front of cops as well.

All paid for by a rich asshole that was mad I kicked his boss out of the House of Lords.

You make me so sad.

Attached: Jews - Lolbergs.jpeg (795x3687 49.74 KB, 430.67K)

Another common objection is that, if government collects the rent of land, it automatically becomes the owner of land. This objection is based on the myth that the terms "rent collector" and "owner" are synonymous. While many rent collectors do, indeed, own the property on which they collect rent, there are, nevertheless, thousands of private rental agents and property managers all over the country who routinely collect rent on properties they do not own. Thus, one does not have to be an "owner" to be a "rent collector." Government is no exception to this rule.

That doesn't mean the government of, say, North Korea does not assert ownership over the land on which it collects rent. It does. But it is not merely the authority to collect land rent, but the authority to dictate how land is used, that makes the North Korean government an "owner" of land. Critics of the LVT repeatedly insist that you can't have one authority without the other, but as mentioned above, the rent-collection services provided by non-owning rental agents and property managers prove just the opposite.

This becomes easier to understand once you realize that "property" refers, not to a single right, but to a bundle of rights – the right to rental income being one of them. The other rights include the right to possess, use, exclude, and transfer title. As any lawyer will tell you, those rights can be transferred in whole or in part.

"The concept of a bundle of rights comes from old English law. In the middle ages, a seller transferred property by giving the purchaser a handful of earth or a bundle of bound sticks from a tree on the property. The purchaser, who accepted the bundle, then owned the tree from which the sticks came and the land to which the tree was attached. Because the rights of ownership (like the sticks) can be separated and individually transferred, the sticks became symbolic of those rights." [Emphasis mine] – Fillmore W. Galaty, Wellington J. Allaway, & Robert C. Kyle, Modern Real Estate Practice, 14th ed., p. 16

This is precisely why, in the U.S., it is possible for city councilmen to collect a portion of land rent through property tax levies, yet be lawfully excluded from the land itself by whoever holds title to that land. Although the local government in this case has a legal right to a certain percentage of the land's rental value, the titleholder has all the other rights of the aforementioned "bundle."

Not only would the titleholder retain those rights under a geolibertarian system, those rights would be strengthened by the fact that (1) he would no longer be taxed for being productive, thus making it far easier for him to afford whatever the rental charge is, and (2) the law would require any surplus revenue to be distributed equally as a citizens dividend. (The latter would provide a built-in incentive for citizens to bring enormous pressure to bear on government to limit its spending, since less wasteful spending would mean a greater surplus, and thus a higher dividend.)

Attached: binarylolbert.png (500x520, 67.48K)

I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever made this thread lives somewhere with no public lands

Self-ownership = freedom. That is to say, the foundation of property rights (and the freedom that flows from those rights) is the property that each person has in himself and, by extension, in the fruits his labor.

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself." – John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, Ch. 5

"The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. 10, Pt 2

"The property rights that each citizen has in himself are the foundation of a free society." – James Bovard, Freedom In Chains, p. 86

"Libertarianism begins with self ownership." – David Bergland, Libertarianism In One Lesson, p. 35

"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action–which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life…Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." – Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2

"The right of life and liberty–that is to say, the right of the man to himself–is not really one right and the right of property another right. They are two aspects of the same perception–the right of property being but another side, a differently stated expression, of the right of man to himself. The right of life and liberty, and the right of the individual to himself, presupposes and involves the right of property, which is the exclusive right of the individual to the things his exertion has produced." – Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 210

Attached: ig.jpg (666x500, 55.76K)

See how the jew squirms and lies when you point out his crooked little rent-seeking schemes

Attached: 1432013454491.gif (554x668, 10.53K)

In the end who collects rent and decides rent rate has authority to dictate how land is used. Just make prohibitive rent rate for the "wrong" use. Or soft variant: jack up rent rate so only enterprises having enough revenue could operate on that land and other's lands who can't meet this level of revenue return to rent collector as debt.

You didnt even read what i posted! Just because you collect rent doesn't mean you are entitled to all or even any other rights associated with a property. Just because you think things work that way doesn't make it so.

Cities appoint someone to collect taxes/rents but the guy doesn't own or have any rights to the properties he collects from. This goes on in every town in America

Just going to leave this here and see if any of you brainlets can refute

Let us itemize the several constructive reconciliations in George's reform proposal. This will explain its wide potential appeal, hence its ongoing threat to embedded rent-takers with a stake in unearned wealth. It will explain why they had neo-classical economists working so hard to put this genie back in the bottle.
1. George reconciled common land rights with private tenure, free markets, and modern capitalism. He would compensate those dispossessed and made landless by the spread and strengthening of what is now called "European" land tenure, whose benefits he took as given and obvious. He would also compensate those driven out of business by the triumph of economies of scale, whose power he acknowledged and even overestimated. He proposed doing so through the tax system, by focusing taxes on the economic rent of land. This would compensate the dispossessed in three ways.

a. Those who got the upper hand by securing land tenures would support public services, so wages and commerce and capital formation could go untaxed.

b. To pay the taxes, landowners would have to use the land by hiring workers (or selling to owner-operators and owner-residents). This would raise demand for labor; labor spending would raise demand for final products.

c. To pay the workers, landowners would have to produce and sell goods, raising supply and precluding inflation. Needed capital would come to their aid by virtue of its being untaxed.

Thus, George would cut the Gordian knot of modern dilemma-bound economics by raising demand, raising supply, raising incentives, improving equity, freeing up the market, supporting government, fostering capital formation, and paying public debts, all in one simple stroke. It's quite a stroke, enough to leave one breathless.

In practice, landowners faced with high land taxes often choose another, even better, course than hiring more workers: they sell the land to the workers, creating an economy and society of small entrepreneurs. This writer has documented a strong relationship between high property tax rates, deconcentration of farmland, and intensity of land use (Gaffney, 1992).

2. George's proposal lets us lower taxes on labor without raising taxes on capital. Indeed, it lets us lower taxes on both labor and capital at once, and without lowering public revenues.

3. Georgist tax policy reconciles equity and efficiency. Taxing land is progressive because the ownership of land is so highly concentrated among the most wealthy, and because the tax may not be shifted. It is efficient because it is neutral among rival land-use options: the tax is fixed, regardless of land use. This is one favorable point on which many modern economists actually agree, although they keep struggling against it.

cont…

Attached: adamsmithisageoist.jpeg (960x480, 67.11K)

So you're saying, I pay for property, such as land once, then the government holds that against me and continues to tax it while I still down own it as im taxed for it, essentially paying twice for it?

Just no nigger.

George showed that a tax can be progressive and pro-incentive at the same time. Think of it! An army of neo-classicalists preach dourly we must sacrifice equity and social justice on the altar of "efficiency." They need that thought to stifle the demand for social justice that runs like a thread through The Bible, The Koran, and other great religious works. George cut that Gordian knot, and so he had to be put down.

The only shifting of a land tax is negative. By negative shifting I mean that the supply-side effects of taxing land will raise supplies of goods and services, and raise the demand for labor, thus raising the bargaining power of median people in the marketplace, both as consumers and workers. This effect makes the tax doubly progressive: it undercuts the holdout power and bargaining power of landowners vis-a-vis workers, and also vis-a-vis new investors in real capital. This effect also makes the land tax doubly efficient.

4. A state, provincial, or local government can finance generous public services without driving away business or population. The formula is simple: tax land, which cannot migrate, instead of capital and people, which can. By eliminating the destructive "Wedge Effect," the land tax lets us support schools and parks and libraries and water purification and police and fire protection, etc., as generously as you please, without suppressing or distorting useful work, and without taxing investors in real capital.

5. Georgist tax policy contains urban sprawl, and its heavy associated costs, without overriding market decisions or consumer preferences, simply by making the market work better. Land values are the product of demand for location; they are marked by continuity in space. That shows quite simply that people demand compact settlement and centrality. A well-oiled land market will give it to them.

6. Georgist tax policy makes jobs without inflation, and without deficits. "Fiscal stimulus," in the shallow modern usage, is a euphemism for running deficits. George's proposed land tax might be called, rather, "true fiscal stimulus." It stimulates demand for labor by promoting hiring; it precludes inflation as the labor produces goods to match the new demand. It precludes deficits because it raises revenue. That is its peculiar reconciliatory genius: it stimulates private work and investing in the very process of raising revenue. It is the only tax of any serious revenue potential that does not bear down on and suppress production and exchange. As I said, George takes two problems and composes them into one solution.

Attached: marxandfriedmanonthesamepage.jpg (640x480, 61.5K)

7. George's land tax lets a polity attract people and capital en masse, without diluting its resource base. This is by virtue of synergy, the ultimate rationale for Chamber-of-Commerce boosterism. Urban economists like William Alonso have illustrated the power of such synergy by showing that bigger cities have more land value per head than smaller ones. (Land value is the resource base of a city.) Urbanists like Jane Jacobs and Holly Whyte have written on the intimate details of how this works on the streets. Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource) philosophizes on the power of creative thought generated when people associate freely and closely in large numbers. Henry George made the same points in 1879.

8. Georgist policies let us conserve ecology and environment while also making jobs, by abating sprawl. It is a matter of focusing human activity on the good lands, thus meeting demands there and relieving pressure to invade lands now wild that are marginal for human needs. Urban sprawl is the kind of sprawl most publicized, but there is analogous sprawl in agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation, and other land uses and industries.

9. Georgist policies let us strengthen public revenues while in the same process promoting economy in government.

Anti-governmentalists often identify any tax policy with public extravagance. Georgist tax policy, on the contrary, saves public funds in many ways. By making jobs it lowers welfare costs, unemployment compensation, doles, aid to families with dependent children, and all that. It lowers jail and police costs, and all the enormous private expenditures, precautions, and deprivations now taken to guard against theft and other crime. Idle hands are not just wasted, they steal and destroy.

Ultimately, Georgist policy saves the cost of civil disturbances and insurrections, and/or the cost of putting them down. In 1992 large parts of Los Angeles were torched, for the second time in a generation, pretty much as foreboded by Henry George in Progress and Poverty. Forestalling such colossal waste and barbarism is much more than merely a "free lunch."

YOU CANT HAVE ANY OF THIS WITH JEWS AND NIGGERS AT THE TOP OF THE PECKING ORDER OF GOVERNMENT GIBS

George's program would abort other, less obvious wastes in government. It obviates much of the huge public cost now incurred to reach, develop, and safeguard lands that should be left in their natural submarginal condition. Today, people occupy flood plains and require levees, flood control dams, and periodic rescue and recovery spending. Others scatter their homes through highly flammable steep brushlands calling for expensive fire-fighting equipment and personnel, and raising everyone's fire insurance premiums. Others build on fault lines; still others in the deserts, calling for expensive water imports. Generically, people now scatter their homes and industries over hundreds of square miles in the "exurbs," or urban sprawl areas, imposing huge public costs for linking the scattered pieces with the center, and with each other.

This wasteful, extravagant territorial overexpansion results from two pressures working together. One force is that of land speculators manipulating politics seeking public funds to upgrade their low-grade lands so they may peddle them at higher prices. The other force is that of landless people seeking land for homes, and jobs, and public funds for "make-work" projects.

Both these forces wither away when we tax land value and downtax wages and capital. This moves good land into full use, meeting the demand for land by using land that is good by Nature, without high development costs. It also makes legitimate jobs, abating the pressure for "make-work" spending. Above all, it takes the private gain out of upvaluing marginal land at public cost. Such lands, if upvalued by public spending, will then have to pay for their own development through higher taxes.

Those nine compelling features of George's program should be enough to persuade one that it had the potentiality of becoming very popular. Its premise, however, was socializing land rents through taxation. Its very strengths were its undoing, then, by evoking a powerful, intransigent, wealthy counterforce.

Attached: landright.jpg (327x154, 12.25K)

You didn't even read what i posted!

In this case its federal government who set ups upper limits of property tax. In the end it can go

This. Sales tax and tax on assets above a certain amount. But with smart monetary policy, tax would not be necessary at all.

thats the idea. slowly raise the LVT to 100% while tapering all other taxation to 0

>(((efficiency)))

Attached: 6356345.jpg (1600x910, 1.75M)

Henry George was American, therefore mentally he was a dumbass Jew.

...

...

Yes, as I said, mentally a Jew.

So families would have their land sold offer to corporate farms when then land owners die off?

No. The only constitutional form of taxes are Tariffs.

I agree, though a sales tax is also sensible, at least on certain goods. One could certainly levy a sales tax on all imported good, to encourage domestic production. One could choose only to levy sales tax on its own people during wartime to reduce reliance on (((debt funding))).

Taxes are fine, within reason. South Carolina has historically had some of the lowest gasoline taxes in the nation, and they recently began raising that by a marginal amount, to increase every year for the next so many. This might piss some people off, but the legislation for it very specifically earmarked all of that money to public works: specifically, fixing the god-awful roads around this entire fucking state. It was at the point where businesses were literally ready to leave the state because the roads were so bad that shipping anything was nearly impossible.

Everybody wants to talk about raising taxes, slashing taxes, what to tax, what should be off-limits. What people should be focusing on are the fees and fines banks take from everything. We all know how (((fractional reserve banking))) effectively creates money out of thin air, and anybody with half a brain knows why debt-backed currencies are so insidious in their design, but what about all of the tiny little things that banks charge for every day?

Every single extra charge, fee, and fine does nothing but nickel and dime the public half to death, and maybe 75% of the charges are entirely invisible because we've become so used to it. There's no reason for a bank that's already making money hand-over-fist to charge people to use things they literally use on a daily basis, such as debit cards and ATMs.

Talking about taxes is fine, but we need to begin talking about actually going against banks. The banks control the government. We can't change the government until the banks are brought to heel.

Attack the root cause of the problem. Don't attempt to treat the symptoms, or they will simply crop time and again.

Attached: Banking.jpg (773x378, 151.6K)

DO YOU WANT TO FACE HITLERPOSTER AGAIN?

You lost the last time.
You'll lose again.

jewish usury, which is trash
public services are for niggers. If you want a thing, you pay for a thing. If you do not want a thing, you do not pay for a thing. If a group wants a thing, a group pays for a thing.
Workers from what country, fellow white?
Or be (((lawyers, plastic surgeons, strip club owners, college professors)))

Attached: megajew.png (350x350, 132.58K)

Thanks for posting this. We need to get the word out about the land value tax. It is better than the status quo in every single way.

Attached: SingleTaxPoster.jpg (240x312, 17.25K)

Also, why should you be taxed out of your home that you paid off because it suddenly became more valuable?

Attached: 1273041411122.jpg (512x384, 26.39K)

Checked

California amended its constitution to outlaw bank fees. They're still charging us. Just like we outlawed affirmative action in 1996, but guess what they're still doing.

When the kikes' money and/or ability to degrade our race is on the line, there is no law. Remember that "law" is the nice thing you do instead of blowing holes in your enemies' heads.

Attached: Of_Course.jpg (480x360, 21.88K)

ive never even been to this place before

...

- Taxes are collected on the land used to mine all the minerals necessary to produce computer equipment.
- Taxes are collected on the land used by the factories that turn raw materials into computers.
- taxes are collected on the land used by the warehouses and stores that distribute/sell computers.
- Taxes are collected on the land used by the data center.

Stop shilling for income, sales, capital gains, interest, dividend, property, and inheritance taxes. All these taxes are impoverishing the poor and middle class, and are holding back all of society. In the US the tax burden is 25% of GDP and government spending is 41% of GDP. We would do just fine with the government being 5% of the economy.

Das right, Wyte boi! We's gon' take all dat sewer 'n water utilities, and all dem power lines belongs to US! Wanna use dem highways? foget about, hwyte boi!

indeed

Attached: ally.png (500x2993, 1.87M)

The problem with only land owners voting is that they will vote to NOT have a land value tax, and instead to tax wages, income, sales, etc. The only solution is to educate everyone that a LVT is superior all other taxes in every way shape and form. Stupid ignorant people can destroy any system, no matter how good it is.

The what is taken from you when your labor is taxed, when the profit of your good business decisions is taxed, when all the goods and services you purchase are taxed, when the home you live in is taxed, when YOUR INHERITANCE is taxed?

Attached: Dmm6xpv.gif (600x304, 262.63K)

WHO IS THE FUCKING RETARD!?!?!?

It is a fact. Tax is just a tool to shrink the money supply. That's all it is. If government does not increase the money supply too quickly, then tax is not necessary at all.

Tax and money supply are completely orthogonal you idiot.