Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

I'm not sure who is worse. The fake libertarian pretending steel is natural or the Georgist wannabe blubbering 'evil'. Let's call it a dead heat!

 

Oooo, content here! super. So you'd tax a diddy house and garden more than a mansion without a garden?

 

If the latter's owner was depriving everyone else of a less advantageous location than the former's, yes. Taxation systems should be designed mainly to internalize externalities, not to punish success or consumption.

 

One cannot honestly evade the knowledge that evil is deliberate infliction of injustice. Use of economic institutions to do so does not magically remove the evil.

 

You didn't make sense. Provide some detail. Tell me how you'd tax home ownership!

 

Yes, it is when the tree it comes from is the result of artificial cultivation rather than a naturally occurring one. Wood in the form of products like sawn lumber is also created through labor.

Naturally occurring wood is. Not wood from cultivated trees, and not wood sawn, dried, finished, and stacked by labor.

Assuming the wood is naturally occurring, and has not been made into a product of labor like a house. You would not have been able to use the wood labor has made into the house without the labor that made it. You only have a liberty right to use the things you would otherwise be at liberty to use, not the things other people have created by their labor.

We have had this discussion before. You always disgrace yourself by claiming, falsely and disingenuously, that "product of labor" means "matter magically produced ex nihilo."

 

Yes, I most certainly did, and you know it.

I wouldn't tax home ownership, as I already told you. I would tax exclusion of others from more of the advantageous locations than one's share. If a home's location was subsidized less than its occupants' total individual exemptions, its owner would owe no location subsidy repayment (LSR).

 

so without Republican capitalism and with libcommunism I would be at liberty to use/steal any land and trees I wanted??

 

Labor doesn't create wood. Labor moves wood and cuts wood into pieces. Labor has never made any wood. Wood is a gift of nature. If you didn't keep this gift of nature from me, I would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

 

This is still blubber. Give practical detail. How are tax exclusions determined precisely? What do you mean by subsidised locations?

 

Yes, but non-exclusively, as our hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding ancestors did for millions of years.

 

Why always spew false and despicable filth?

The universal individual exemption (UIE) is roughly analogous to the individual exemption from personal income tax, but is the same for all resident citizens. It reduces the location subsidy repayment (LSR) liability for each individual's residential address by the UIE amount multiplied by the number of citizens residing at that location. I've suggested half the median per-person rental value of residential locations used as a reasonable UIE amount. It's enough to provide free, secure access to economic opportunity, but not so much that it would encourage wasteful use of locations or excessively compromise public revenue.

Land's exchange value is always identical to the market's estimate of how much more the owner will be able to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever pay in taxes on it. That difference is the subsidy to the location's owner. However, exchange value (expected future subsidy) is not always a good proxy for the current periodic subsidy, so the subsidy's current periodic (probably monthly) value would be calculated and updated monthly by a computerized system based on actual transactions and private appraisers' reports.

 

got it so I could use land cut trees build a home for a night but then turn it over to first guy in line for use of land and home the following night at which time I would get in line for use of another land and tress for the following night??

 

No, you could either sell him the product of your labor or compensate the community of those whom you exclude from the land. It's not rocket science. You just want to violate others' rights without making just compensation for what you deprive them of. Simple.

 

Which means what? How are these terms precisely determined?

 

The LSR liability amount is found by applying computerized analysis to all rental and sale transaction data and private appraisals to get best-fit monthly subsidy values for each location, then subtracting the applicable UIEs. A good way to determine the UIE amount would be to calculate the periodic subsidy value used by each resident citizen by dividing his residential location's monthly value by the number of citizens residing there, thus getting one data point for each resident citizen, and then taking half the median of that population.

 

So home ownership does matter then?

 

Responsible management of the commons gave some users the right to the resources and excluded many others from using the resources. Essentially, creating private property.

Responsible management of the commons gave a few the right to use a specific resource and excluded many others from using that same resource. Essentially creating private property of that resource.

My land is taxed by the value, productivity, and improvements made to the land. I receive little value from those tax dollars.

Investment in land improvements by the land owner , businesses and housing, attracts people to that area and increases tax revenue that can then be spent on desired infrastructure.

 

I quoted this post becasue I think it closely relates to your point here BHK:

I positioned this. Friedman said "We have already seen how a free market separates economic efficiency from irrelevant characteristics. As noted in chapter i, the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made from wheat grown by a white man or a Negro, by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the producer of wheat is in a position to use resources as effectively as he can, regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward the color, the religion, or other characteristics of the people he hires."

...and...

"The man who exercises discrimination pays a price for doing so. He is, as it were, "buying" what he regards as a "product." It is hard to see that discrimination can have any meaning other than a "taste" of others that one does not share. We do not regard it as "discrimination" -- or at least not in the same invidious sense -- if an individual is willing to pay a higher price to listen to one singer than to another, although we do if he is willing to pay a higher price to have services rendered to him by a person of one color than by a person of another. The difference between the two cases is that in the one case we share the taste, and in the other we do not."

I don't always agree with everything that Friedman said, but as he stated above a truly free market is the great equalizer. It is the right of any person to be bigoted but bigotry pays a heavy toll, and it doesn't matter if you are on the supply side or demand side of the equation.

This is what I see is his false dichotomy. He see the only solution as government, when many times government is the root of bigotry (see the rash of police brutalities, the genocide afforded upon the American Indian, and the skirmish that President have had with the middle east, Mexicans and a rash of others). It's idiotic to see these issues in only two dimensions.

 

The question I asked, "Did he, really?" was intended for any others who read the response by Kode to your post.

 

Sure...just corrected my typo.

 

You still have not produced a single credible link that supports your bogus allegations in that regard.

 

You know that is false. And here's another one:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...-by-a-life-long-union-supporter/#73fcd4b143f8

And another:

http://www.cjonline.com/article/20130803/OPINION/308039815

 

Obviously that is false. It was corrupt management.

No, that was corrupt management.

GARBAGE. You receive far more than you pay in taxes. The entire unimproved value of your land is the measure of the subsidy you can expect to receive by owning it.

More GARBAGE. The landowner does no such thing. Only a land user can make such investments. The landowner qua landowner is always, by definition, a pure parasite. He only takes, and contributes nothing in return.

 

Of course: it matters very much that products of labor like houses are rightly initially owned by their producers, and it matters almost as much that producers' property rights in what they have produced are conserved in consensual exchanges.