Geoists are they nuts or what?

are they kinda like the Amish?

 

Can I exist in this “voluntary” world of yours without some landlords permission? If not, then how can it be considered voluntary?

If the current landowners put a stipulation in their will that the land they own can never be used again after their death, would it be an act of aggression if someone planted corn on that land, or even walked across it?

If landowners don't want to share their land, can they toss all the newborn babies into the sea? If not … why not?

Finally, if I could make a huge compressor and storage tank and compress the earths atmosphere into the tank, thereby making it my property, would it be an act of aggression for anyone else to stop me? I mean, the fact that the air entered my compressor is proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that nobody else was using that resource at the time. In this scenario, I am simply using your version of property rights to kill everyone else on earth … are you good with that?

You see? When you try to make property out of things that are not property, like the earth, the atmosphere, or the sunshine, you open the door to all kinds of negative and absurd outcomes.

You cannot truthfully answer the questions posed above while remaining consistent in your arguments. That is what happens when you make property out of what is not property, and then hold that property as more precious than the life and freedom of others.

I am against property laws that allow landowners to throw newborn babies into the sea. Landowners can move over a little, and make room in this world for the little babies.

 

if the gov doesn't have power, the rich control you.... and the rich will always be born rich as they will never get poor as they would make the rules

your "taxes" then woudl be called "rent"

.

 

That's got to be the most convoluted appraisal system around! What a nightmare for everyone. And this is all in the hopes of you not having to pay taxes - just shove them on landowners.

What sucks for the farmer is eventually going to suck for you. When only corporate farms can afford land rents - the price of groceries goes through the roof. Seriously, this LVT idea is one of most ridiculous ones out there.

And wealth disparity is worse in Hong Kong than in most places in the world. Your LVT is part of the problem. See here.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/06/news/economy/hong-kong-income-inequality/

 

Someone's got to own land. You don't want people to own it. So can the state toss all newborn babies into the sea?

 

Yes because the state will. Geoism is a distinction without a difference from Marxism when it comes to land ownership.

 

Okay, so after all these pages - I think we can safely say the answer to the Title question is "YES."

 

I have no problem with people owning land, if that is what you want to call it, but they should pay the economic rent to the government. In turn, the government must provide services and infrastructure back to the community. So, individuals give land rent to the government and government gives roads, police protection and schools back to the community. The individuals of the community can use these goods for their enjoyment and profit. If you don't like what the government provides to the community, then find another community – with thousands to choose from – which suits you better.

The system I advocate guarantees a right to use land. The system you advocate removes the right to use land. Therefore my system makes space for the baby to exist in. While your system denies the baby space to exist in; making it legal to expel the baby into the sea.

 

I suppose by comparing land rents in high rent areas to the rents in low rent areas which have similar infrastructure. Anything the appraisers come up with would be better than what we have now.

 

If they have to pay rent, they don't own it.

The system you advocate denies access to land to those who don't pay rent to the state. The state could throw newborn babies into the sea, if it wished to forbid them access to its land.

 

A large percentage of farmers are paying land rent to a landowner now. Geoism doesn't alter the land rents, it only changes who the rents go to. So instead of farmers paying land rent to a landowner, they instead pay that same rent to the government … but then they are tax free after that. If you were a farmer today, would you rather pay land rent to a landowner AND taxes to government. Or, would you rather just pay the same land rent to the government and keep the money you would have given in taxes under the current system? Why pay land rent AND taxes, when you could just pay land rent under the geoist system. For many farmers the geoist system would just eliminate the taxes they pay, and would not increase what they pay for land, so geoism leaves them better off by removing all tax burdens … how can you possibly think that would lead to higher food prices?


Also, land is under consolidation right now, under the current system, priced out of reach of most individuals. That is why we need to change the current system based on privilege. Land value taxation makes land more affordable to farmers, and everyone else, while also bringing more land to the market.

 

Under geoism the government cannot keep the land rent either. Government has to pay it back to the community in the form of compensation, services and infrastructure. Government cannot keep the land rent, so by your own admission, you must agree that government does not own the land. Why do you keep insisting that government owns the land when you know that government is forced to return the rent to the community?

False. The system I advocate calls for either an individual land tax exemption or equivalent citizens dividend (which could be used to pay the land rent). This guarantees the individual right to use some land for free. In other words, every individual would be exempt from paying rent on a portion of land large enough to live on in relative comfort.

 

If they are renting the land from the government, the government owns it.

 

The tenant pays the land rent to the landowner; the landowner pays the land rent to the government; the government pays the land rent to the community.

The government has to spend the land rent on compensation, infrastructure and services which are received by the community for free. The government is no more the landowner than the tenant is the landowner.

 

You only rent stuff that you do not own.

 

This is an equivocation fallacy. Land rent is a form of economic rent and that is how I was using the word in my post. You are using a different type of rent in your reply. That is how you are confusing yourself. Under the current system of land tenure landowners already do pay some (economic) rent to the state, yet we still refer to them as landowners. In other words, we don't say that the landowner is “renting” from the state, even though he is paying land (economic) rent to the state.

 

They don't care. These is a scheme that would shift the cost of taxation away from urban real estate developers onto farmers and force people into urban areas where they will be under the thumb of the democratic party. That is all this is. I cannot think of a single land use argument they offer that could not be settled with he takings clause if the alleged issues really existed.

 

That's exactly what I've been arguing for the last two years. We already have a land use tax in this country. The fact that it is collected by the states and municipalities rather than the feds changes nothing.

 

We also have zoning laws on top of all that which highly regulates land use in areas where land use is an issue.

 

Nonsense. We already have appraisers setting value for tax purposes in every city county and state in the union.

 

We do care. We believe that everyone has an equal right to use what nature provided. Which means that we need to know what nature provided and what was provided by human effort; so what nature provided can be shared, while what human effort provided can secured to those who produced it.

Flat-out-false. Land value taxation does not tax farmers, it removes the taxes that farmers are currently forced to pay.

I doubt the democratic party would exist in a geoist style society. A geoist governments job would be to provide infrastructure and services which generate enough land rent to pay for those activities. I cannot imagine what benefit could come from having political parties to do what is essentially a business operation.

Can you explain this in more detail?

 

Only in your delusional imagination, as urban land is worth more than farm land. Are you one of those clowns who does not know the difference between area and value, hmm?

 

You don't really understand how this works. I am a landowner - I own a farm - a mid-size farm. I am the owner - another farmer actually farms the property. It's a tenet/producer setup through FSA rules. The man who actually farms does not pay me - I draw a percentage of the harvested crop. I pay the county treasurer property tax on the land. What you think happens is totally wrong.

Under your proposal, my taxes (you call it LVT) would go up to the actual value of the land, minus the value of my house (I live out here), barns and outbuildings. The value of the acreage I own - just the land - would put me in the position of paying over a quarter of a million dollars each year in LVT. That's the actual value of just the acreage. Right now, I pay about $12,000 per year in property taxes, which take into account the value of the house and outbuildings. Do you honestly think I'm going to pay a quarter of a million dollars per year (100% assessment of the value)?

No.

But, let's suppose you pushed that nonsense through. I would obviously sell the family farm and move. Whomever wanted to farm this land at that point would have to pay that LVT. Guess what? The cost prohibitive figure would weed out all but the corporate farmers and they will pass those costs on to the actual farmers, which would drive up the cost of food to a degree that we'd all be starving.

If no one could afford the LVT on the land, there would be no more farming of the land, which would also decrease the supply of wheat and corn in the commodity markets.

As I just showed you - you're completely wrong. You're so wrong that it's actually amusing. I also showed you what happened in Hong Kong and how housing costs there are now beyond the reach of most people.

This is a fluffy, feel-good proposal that adherents don't understand the ramifications of.

What you're really trying to do is shift YOUR tax burden to someone else.

All I can tell you is to get out - earn some money and buy your own property. Yes, it's expensive but you need to see from the other side before you can understand that those who own property are NOT going to pay for your way in the world. Pay it yourself. Here in the Midwest where we produce the food that goes on your table, you would see utter chaos and very likely a grass roots revolution that would rock your world should you (or other communists) try to take away what our families have toiled and sweated for over the generations. It's not yours unless you buy it. Nobody's going to hand you anything. You have to earn it.

If you think today's property owners (farm or otherwise) will turn over ownership to the government, and then rent back their land at astronomical prices - you're pretty naive. It will never happen. You might want to look for a different bandwagon to ride.

 

I understand exactly how it works … I grew up on a farm and spent thousands of hours behind the wheel of a tractor. The landowner does nothing and the farmer does everything and provides all the capital. But then the farmer has to fork-over a third or more of the crop to the idle landowner who contributes nothing (nature provided the land).

No. The land value tax is just a tax on the income that landowners can get for doing nothing. So, if your tenant is paying you a third the crop and that is the most you can get in rent, then that is what your tax bill would be (or the cash equivalent).

Again, this shows that you do not understand how the land value tax works. Land value tax does not tax the exchange value of the land, just the income the land is capable of producing in the open market.
The theory is that if we place a heavy income tax on what nature provided then we can eliminate all taxes on beneficial human activities, such as production and trade.

You could keep the land and buy the equipment to farm it. Your tax bill would be exactly what your tenant is now paying you in rent. If your tenant is making a profit then so could you. With the elimination of all other taxes, your profits would be that much greater, if you know how to farm.

Completely wrong. It is impossible for land value taxation to push land out of production because the taxes can never be more than what individuals in the market offer to pay. If a farmer wants a thousand acre parcel of high quality farm land, he can make an offer of $1 in annual taxation at the county courthouse, and if his is the highest offer, then he receives secure tenure. It doesn't matter if that farmer makes a million dollars in profits farming that land, his entire tax bill is $1, because nobody offered more than he did.

And yet Hong Kong has one of the most dense populations on the planet. The people who live there are free to leave. If it is so bad then why do they stay … why do more keep coming? Makes your argument seem kinda made-up.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Own the lake, and he will work his entire lifetime just to get enough fish to eat to stay alive, because you will be enabled to take all the rest of the fish he catches, and get rich off his labor while contributing nothing.

 

Bull****! This is a straw man designed to discredit Libertarianism. Libertarianism is based on liberty and property rights, real allodial property rights are fundamental to Libertarianism. The Libertarian platform is clear on this an any attempt to link Libertarianism with Geoists is usually being put out by paid shills trying to discredit Libertarianism and confuse people who are looking at it as an alternative to the two existing failed parties.