Free State Project Forum
271565 Posts in 22289 Topics by 36755 Members / Latest Member: LibertyFenix
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2014, 02:08:12 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.

+  Free State Project Forum
|-+  Politics and Philosophy
| |-+  General Political Discussion
| | |-+  On The Commons
| | | |-+  The lost geolib discussion
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2  Go Down Print
Author Topic: The lost geolib discussion  (Read 7591 times)
Tracy Saboe
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3859



WWW

Ignore
The lost geolib discussion
« on: February 26, 2004, 02:38:41 pm »

I found this post.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=4172;start=300#msg63687 date=1066966374

I had saved this on my computer in Notepad. You see, to this day Bill hasn't answered these objections to his utopian view of perfect government.


Well, don't Neo-libertarians claim that our current system isn't providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that free market capitalism with a minarchist state will?

No. Libertarians claim that the free market system is beneficial to EVERYBODY. There is no minority that gets hurt by the majority. 2ndly. Your system of geo-government isn't minarchist.

It's got an extra "buero of land rent collection." In your system, burocrats come after land owners with guns and force them to pay just to stay on their land. In your system their IS a minority that gets hurt.

Quote
If the money you are referring to is the economic scarcity rent pocketed by free-riding landowners - NO!

First of all, they're not free-riders. They've bought a piece of land, and they're living on it.

2ndly, you haven't proven to me that economic scarcity rent even exists in the real world outside your artificial intellectual construct. Like I said before. In New Hampshire, land is actually cheeper in real dollars then it was back in colonial days. When a land owners property values go down, shouldn't they be entitled to some sort of subsidy from the people who caused their property values go down? And how are you going to get the money to get them that subsidy?

This is something you have conveniently ignored several times in my posts. Sometimes (in fact many times) undeveloped property values go down. To be fair, they should be entitled to an economic Glut Subsidy or something. Do you just tax everybody (again probably with guns) that would have received dividends? Do you tax everybody that migrates out the the area lowering the demand for property? Do you tax developers that develop their land for shelter thereby decreasing
the demand for raw land? Do you use some expansive statistical simulation to try and figure out who caused property values to go down, and tax only those people? OK, so now you have another beurocracy. "The Economic-Glut subsidy-collection-incase-property-values-go-down" beuro.

Eventually this "property rent" system will become as complicated as the income tax. As everybody screams to make it more fair.

And secondly -- again something which you've ignored -- all those collectors, and deliverers have to get paid something. If they're skimming the top off this "rent" (and also the glut) how much of it is really going to get to the people it's suppose too? Remember burocracies are in many ways self serving. They will work to increase their budgets continually so they can keep their power and stay in existence.

http://www.mises.org/store/product1.asp?SID=2&Product_ID=47

Quote
Quote
all they'll do is raise the amount of property tax charged on that land enslaving us to the same level of taxation we had before.

At least the landowner has the option of using the land productively - the more the better - because the income they derive from using the land productively is not TAXED at all. Whereas, the tenant in the current Neo-libertarian situation ONLY HAS his LABOR to pay the economic scarcity rent!

First of all, you better stop calling me neo-libertarian, if you don't want me to call you a geo-communist. 2ndly He IS using it productively. He's living on it if nothing else. and who are you to tell him what's productive use or not? If he's being forced to make income, just to keep his land, to me that's slavery.

Quote
Quote
Also, their isn't a single piece of land in this country that hasn't been developed somehow

Well, I am afraid if the Neo-libertarians have their way there won't be any at all. Thank god some of the commons are being protected. Unfortunately the Government is a terrible steward and subject to the whims of current political party in power as we are witnessing with the NeoCon rollback of the bipartisan clean air act, etc. This is exactly why Geo-Libs are arguing for the citizens (commoners) to be tied DIRECTLY to the commons via compensation (citizens dividend) when outside interests take more than their fair share!

What outside interests? People moving into the area? It seems to me if people are moving into the area increasing the demand for land they should be the ones to pay for that increased demand.

Fair? What's your definition of fair? In reality life isn't fair. The only place where everything is totally equal and fair, is a place where you have no freedom. Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free. So what is a person's fair share? I agree that government isn't the
right place to steward the land, so why do you want government interference telling private people how to manage their land?

Quote
Quote
If I plant more shrubs, or trees, to attract wildlife (So I can have income from hunters or whatever)I've developed my property. If I cut away thickets so my land is less prone to fires, I've developed my property. If I turn my land into a marsh so I can raise Cranberries, I've developed my property.

Tracy - between Todd and me I think we have posted a dozen of the same responses and you still don't get it...

Everyone of those "development" items listed is labor created value and we both have been very upfront about the fact that taxation on labor is theft!

Sure, but how is the "rent" collector going to know which was done naturally and which you planted -- especially if you're working to restore or create a wild-life habitat. It seems to me that people that work to preserve nature just to keep it preserved, because they want to, or whatever, would be taxed higher. The collector would come, and because he knows their's higher bids for your property then their was a year ago, and he doesn't see any noticeable "development" (Because he doesn't see anything obviously man-made), he's going to charge this private environmental group more rent.

Should the Aubidon society be forced to pay rent just to continue their wild-life improving?

Because some two-bit beurocrat isn't going to be able to tell the difference. He'll think it's the same as it was and that basic demand for land just went up.

And you call yourself a green!

Quote
Quote
You're distinctions between "the Land" and "the Development" are extremely messy.

No I don't think so...but it is becoming clear to me that like others who have had their paradigm undermined with reasoned and logical arguments you find the situation to be quite untenable and you are going through the usually stages of denial. Not to worry I have seen it before...but it
is up to you to open you eyes to what is plain for others to see.

Their's no reason to get all sanctimonious with me. You sound like some prattling mother. And apparently it's not so plain because there is quite a bit of decent against this idea. And Yes, your definitions between land and development are messy. First off, like I said. Even the Native Americans developed their land. They worked with it, and cultivated it to better themselves and nature. Their isn't a piece of land in America that hasn't been developed by some human influence in some way at some point in time. Because you don't know what the value of the land was before it was developed (Because, that was like a couple hundred years ago.) and you don't know what the
current undeveloped value of the land is. (Because all you know currently is the total between developed and undeveloped.) you have no basis with which to charge this economic scarcity rent.  

You have two unknowns and you need both of those unknowns in order to know what to charge.

"Original value of the land before any human interference" and "Current undeveloped value" which you don't know, because all land has had human contact and been developed in some way at some point or another.

And 2ndly like I mentioned above, sometimes it's extremely difficult to tell, what value of the property is atatributed to the development, and what value should be attributed to the land. Soon, you're going to have pages and pages of rules and definitions describing what constitutes development and what doesn't. And if somebody plants a tree, Exactly what is that development worth. You're going to need to put a price on it. If you don't, you won't know how much of the increase in property value is to to the development and how much is do to the increase in "land scarcity." so eventually you'll have all sorts of laws and rules saying what constitutes development and what developments are worth what.

But sometimes cutting down a tree is development. Maybe I want to clear the area so I can use solar panels, or because the forest is too thick and I want to help reduce the chance of forest fire? or something? So eventually you'll have rules that contradict each other. Cutting down a tree is worth this much development. Planting a tree is worth this much. etc. You'll have property owners who know how to work the system and get ever richer then they would have, and property owners that don't who end up in the poor house. It's much better, to not have any system to work. This is, in effect, what any sort of taxation (call it whatever you like, but remember Orwell and NEWSPEAK) degenerates into. Because everybody is screaming "it's not fair." In reality, the only fair tax, is a non-existent tax. And like I said above, you don't like government owning land, why do you want it to regulate private land through taxation?

(cont.)
« Last Edit: February 26, 2004, 02:41:55 pm by Tracy Saboe » Logged

We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
Tracy Saboe
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3859



WWW

Ignore
Re:I FOUND that post on my computer.
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2004, 02:39:03 pm »

Quote
Quote
And if you charge me taxes, the value of my land is going to go down, because the next person that wants to purchase it will figure the "rent" into his expenses and not be willing to pay as much for it. This goes for the "poor" people you're trying to help too. They won't be able to afford to purchase as much land as they otherwise would, because they're forced to pay taxes.

Yes the value of land will go down because people who underutilize their land (read: speculators) will pay a heavy societal burden and have to sell but believe it or not the "poor" people will gladly take this trade-off..

Yes, many poor people will gladly take a hand-out, from a rich property owner, and they'll probably think using the government to force the owners to do "give" it with guns is a good thing.

What societal burden. Societies don't own or have owed to them anything. Only individuals can own and have things owed to them. I don't own anything to "SOCIETY," and neither do you. Saying that somebody owes society
something is an extremely collectivist thing to say.

First of all, we need speculators. Speculators are what the economy and the environment both need to conserve resources. Many many acres of forest were kept from being cut down, because investors had bought the land, because they knew the price of timber was going up (so they did some thinking work - that should be worth something right?). if they hadn't been allowed to sit on their land, they would have been forced to sell it off to make current money, thereby causing irregularities: Over-depressing the prices of lumber, and causing a true shortage later. Because they would have been forced to sell off their land, or sell trees, or whatever, just to keep their own land, we probably wouldn't have any forests left. And then the price of timber would REALLY shoot up. So instead of the value of timber, going up gradually, and then leveling off and going down again on their own when
forest plantation owners start developing their trees (like they did, and would do better if all of the forests were privately owned). The price of timber gets depressed as land owners are forced to sell to make current money, just so they can keep their land, until their's a real
shortage of trees and the price skyrockets.

When the cost of trees would skyrocket, who do you think would be left holding the bag. The poor people. The ones who now need housing, but they can't get it, because the timber has been overexploited because land owners weren't allowed to keep their property.

I seriously doubt if you've ever read the book Free Market Environmentalism or you wouldn't be saying such things.

2ndly, if I go out, and I dig myself an underground house, put up solar panels for electricity, and build myself a small water tower to collect rain in. I can probably live off the land. After I have everything set up, I'm probably not going to do much with it. I will probably under-utilize it. You would force me to make money (FRNs, Gold, Whatever) just so I can keep my shelter and live in it? Or Force me to sell it, and then I have to start all over again someplace else with my labor?

It's not my fault people have moved into the area and need places to stay. Why should I be force to pay for them? they chose to come here. Now, if I make my own kids, yeah, then I'm responsible for them, but why should I be forced to pay for other peoples kids? Those other people are the ones who made them. Giving a dividend out to everybody evenly based on population seems to me, like it would cause the  same sort of mentality whereby parents have more kids just so they can get more welfare money, like in our current welfare system.

Quote
"Under the current Neo-libertarian system you can try to accumulate the capital needed to purchase a piece of land (which includes the economic scarcity rent in the inflated purchase price) all the while your current landlord "TAXES' your labor at exorbitant rates because the supply of land is scarce due to speculators"

First of all again, you haven't proven to me that "economic scarcity rent" is anything more then

your imaginative construct, because many times the undeveloped value of land goes down (in real terms) The main reason rents get exorbitant isn't because of speculators either, but because of zoning laws. Speculators typically hold onto land until such a time comes that that land is worth developing. It's when rents are extremely high, that development becomes worthwhile, and speculators want to build. The reason
development isn't done, is because current owners of developed property vote to make zoning laws that prevent developers from developing, because the owners of developed property don't want the value of their house to go down. It's not the speculators who want the zoning laws, they want to develop when there is sufficient demand to make it worth while. The owners of developed property, outvote speculators to put in zoning laws. (Democracy really is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on
what to have for dinner isn't it.) The thing to do then, is to get rid of the zoning laws. Not add more socialism. It's when rents are really really cheap that speculators don't develop their land -- because there isn't enough demand to make it worth while.

Quote
or

"Under the Geo-libertarian system the price of land will come down substantially as speculators are forced to pay a heavy burden. Landowners will be encouraged to use their land more intensively the closer you get to the urban core (highest values) and build apartments/businesses that will significantly drive down the price of homes and apartments so your labor won't be "TAXED" so heavily. When you are now able to save enough money and if you
choose to buy a high value piece of land you just need to use it productively - the more the better"

why should speculators be forced to pay a "burden." They didn't steal anything from anybody. This scenario you suggest would already happen if you got rid of the zoning laws that make it illegal for developers to build in certain places. And it would be easier to save enough money to go out an buy a house, if I wasn't forced to pay the property tax that's passed onto me by my landlord.

And do you really want land-owners to use their land more intensively? It seems to me, that would and could wreck the environment. It's much better to let owners decide what to do on their own property for themselves, instead of their property being regulated through taxation. If I want to buy a piece of land, and live off of it, that should be my choice. I shouldn't be forced to make
money, just so I can keep it.

Quote
What is your decision Mr. "poor" man?

Why do you call me poor? You got the man part right, for that is my sex. But why do you call me poor? How do you define poor?

Quote
Do you choose slavery or freedom?

I want freedom, but I don't want your version of freedom. Your version of freedom would force land-owners to be slaves to non-landowners. It would force me to pay for sheltering people who could, and should help themselves. You're type of freedom would force me to pay for buerocrats to barge into my home with guns. You're type of freedom would encourage homelessness (Because it's
harder to save money for a home) and welfare. True freedom doesn't encourage neither.

You forget that if everybody is receiving this dividend money for free, that it would drive up demand for many things, including housing, which would just force landlords to jack up their rent to prevent shortages. The dividend wouldn't help the "poor." Because they didn't earn it, they
would, for the most part use it frivolously. That's what all welfare does. And they would be just as homeless as they are now.

We'll never be free if you keep preaching your philosophy. You're never going to attract people who really want to be free and not dependent on anybody with this. The only people this philosophy is going to attract is going to be covetous people who think it's right for the state to steal for them. And you're not going to attract true liberty lovers who really want to reduce government.

Tracy Saboe

Logged

We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
BillG
Guest


Email
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2004, 02:42:13 pm »

and your point is?

Quote
to this day Bill hasn't answered these objections to his utopian view of perfect government.

a never said this was an argument for "perfect" government...I said it was the only way to insure freedom for all rather than slavery for most which is our current system (Neo-Libertarianism).

There is no way the residents of the State of NH are going to vote to eliminate 2/3 of the budget without a viable plan to replace it.

The citizens dividend does that within the original classical liberals philosophy...see Thomas Paine's pamphlet called "Agrarian Justice"

You should know that perfection is only possible in the next realm!

Quote
I seriously doubt if you've ever read the book Free Market Environmentalism or you wouldn't be saying such things.

I have. It is sitting on my shelf as I type collecting dust...

Quote
Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free

see a prominent NC Libertarian's website for an explanation of why this is a false dichotomy...

excerpt:
For far too long, political factions argued the relative merit of various values: freedom vs. equality, prosperity vs. a clean environment, and so on. Such emphasis on trade-offs has resulted in unnecessary strife and incomplete solutions to political problems. In the communist world, freedom was extinguished in the goal of equality. In the U.S. poverty reigns in the midst of plenty as we try to preserve freedom vs. creating a European style "welfare state".

These disasters are unnecessary, and the solution is straightforward: we need political activists who recognize multiple values at the same time. We need people who recognize that small government and helping the poor are both valuable. We need people to recognize the power of capitalism while still being concerned about the environment. With such activists, we can take advantage of the many synergies that are available.

Which is better: a big cuddly government taking care of people from cradle to grave, or a lean just government that allows rampant capitalism to produce so much wealth that some trickles down to the masses? The answer: this is a false dichotomy!

http://holisticpolitics.org
« Last Edit: February 26, 2004, 02:58:09 pm by BillG (not Gates) » Logged
Tracy Saboe
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3859



WWW

Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2004, 02:51:51 pm »

It's utopian to believe that any kind of government will only act in the best interests of liberty as opposed to statistism.

And it's even more utopian to believe that government will  only act in the particular way YOU think it should to achieve these goals.

See Also
http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/murray_rothbard_and_henry_george_001610.asp

Tracy
Logged

We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
demarkus
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2004, 10:17:19 pm »

Great link! He even calls geo-libs socialists.  Wink
Logged

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
- Voltaire
BillG
Guest


Email
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2004, 10:35:33 pm »

Great link! He even calls geo-libs socialists.  Wink

well, not exactly...more like guilt by association which has been typical of this forum.

excerpt in question:
"The socialists say that rent is unearned income, and thus theft, making no distinction between the value of land as is and the value added to it by man's labor. The Georgists refine this socialist argument, saying that the portion of rent earned because of the inherent value of the land is unearned, while the portion earned because of the improvements the landlords have made on the land due to their labor (or those they acquired the land from) is earned.
Logged
demarkus
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2004, 10:41:35 pm »

How do you know when Locke's Priviso isn't met?
Logged

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
- Voltaire
demarkus
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2004, 11:24:06 pm »

I think it is a fairly good question....
Logged

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
- Voltaire
BillG
Guest


Email
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2004, 11:26:50 pm »

How do you know when Locke's Priviso isn't met?

when a rental market develops for land...if there was as ggod and enough left in common then there would be no reason to rent.
Logged
demarkus
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2004, 01:34:27 pm »

Rental market for what?

Most people don't rent land they rent housing....or am I misunderstanding terms?
Logged

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
- Voltaire
Terry 1956
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2889


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2004, 01:47:25 pm »

Assume that a settlement agreement on land deeds  is in the works in the US. Every adult US citizen gets either an equal share to land area  or the value to purchase said quality land area minus 10% for present owners and 1% for the settlement negotiators and distribution outfits. There is about 70 people per square mile in the US and about 75% of them are adult citizens, so about 12.19 acres each minus the 11% would be around 10.85 acres each. Average cropland value in the US for 2002 was around 1,700 an acre or about  18,445 dollars for 10.85 acres. That would be nearly 3.7 trillion dollars if the money was giving to every one of the 200 million US adult citizens. Now why give the amount to those who already have land of that value, if they have a suburban quarter acre lot worth 20,000, surely they could have bought 10 acres somewhere else, so they should get nothing, if their lot is worth 10,000 dollars they should only get 8,445, if it is only worth 2000 they should only get 16,445 dollars. Now what if they have stock, mutual funds or retirement funds where their share of the companies land value is 18,500 dollars? They should get nothing. What if their church owns land and each members share of value is 18,446 dollars each or they belong to a club with a similar value? I guess it would depend if they have a say in the group.                        
  Now this makes a big diffrence if only 20 million get the full amount and another 20 average half the total fiqure would drop to 555 billion, which borrowed could  be payed off  in 15 years or less with 50 billion a year or less. of course payment would need to be set aside for  qualified future adult citizen population increases if any, so maybe 75 billion a year would be payed with the extra being invested in a reserve fund or an agreement could be to pay qualified adult citizens 2000 a year for 12 to 15 years.                                        
  Now if you take Tom Paines idea and give every 18 year old a sum say 18,500 dollars each with about 3 million new 18 year olds each year that would be 55.5 billion dollars and if only half qualify it would be around 28 billion a year, if 2000 a year was giving to half  of the 18 years old for 12 years that would be 3 billion a year.
Logged
Terry 1956
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2889


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2004, 02:32:17 pm »

 Now  land in Concord, NH is worth more than the average farm land in the US by far but a equal share of the 64 square miles would only be about an acre each for the people of Concord but  any settlement should be decided by the people there.                                          
          In my county here there are 195 square miles or 124,800 acres with about 11,000 people, probally 7,000 adults subtract 10% for the owners and there are 16 acres for every adult with say an average value of 3,000 dollars or 48,000 dollars, now I would say half have at least 5 acres or 10 per couple with about  a 1,000 of those having at least 16 acres or 32 per couple. There may be at least a 1000  having less than 16 acres but the land they have is worth at least 48,000 dollars, another 500 to 1,000 may have passive  assets coming from land value worth at least 48,000 dollars. If  a state wide agreement was reached you could deduct that amount and any amount from a nation wide agreement. So the agreement for the county may be 3000 adult citizens would get on average 20,000 dollars or say 1,200 dollars for 20 years.
Logged
BillG
Guest


Email
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2004, 03:05:38 pm »

Rental market for what?

Most people don't rent land they rent housing....or am I misunderstanding terms?

here in NH your property is assessed for both buildings and land and the single rate is applied to both...but it is usually easier to talk about land alone for purposes of this discussion. So think of yourself as a tenant farmer competing with someone else for access to the same fertile land.

It actually gets a little more complicated because land is consider all of the material universe (natural resources) that preceded man...air, water, land. geo-Libs also seperate themselves from strict Georgists by being concerned with other government granted priviledges besides land titles/patent like the electromagnetic spectrum, intellectual property, etc...
Logged
Terry 1956
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2889


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2004, 05:16:53 pm »

Linking from Todd's sight it said that private land in the Us is actually worth 9 trillion and not 4 trillion the government claims ( but how much of that 9Trillion is unimproved value, 90%, 50% or all?).                                
   subtract 10% for the owner and you get around 42,000 for every adult but how many already have land valued by that much or have passive assets of 42,000 in land value, how many have a percentage?      
    If the government is under valuing  private land it very well may be under valuing total government fixed assets said to be worth 6 trillion. Liguid assets such as stocks, mutual funds and corporate bonds is not included in that fiqure. Also good will value from operations is not included. Ok say the total government assets is worth 12 trillion, government land worth 3 trillion and the miltary assets worth 1 trillion, so about 8 trillion in non land or miltary assets which would be about 100 billion shy of the 9 trillion in private land minus 10% for the owner.                              
   Of course arguments may be this is assets owned by all of us anyway so they should not go towards any settlement. Yes public owned means by all the public except the assets where taking mostly by force so to settle that debt it may be that they should be giving by to the owner in relation to the value taken, thus someone paying 20,000 in  taxes  and for 50 years would get back 1 million plus another million for punitive damages, some who had their land taken to build a free way would get the land back. Of course it is public assets and I would perfer all government property revert to the local neighborhoods and a settlement ageement be reached. I really think that say 1% to 2% of the value of government assets would be more than enough to see that any person had enough money to buy or lease 10 acres of Ag land or the money to do what they wished to start a business, to get an advanced education .
Logged
Terry 1956
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2889


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:The lost geolib discussion
« Reply #14 on: February 29, 2004, 10:46:11 pm »

Great link! He even calls geo-libs socialists.  Wink

well, not exactly...more like guilt by association which has been typical of this forum.

excerpt in question:
"The socialists say that rent is unearned income, and thus theft, making no distinction between the value of land as is and the value added to it by man's labor. The Georgists refine this socialist argument, saying that the portion of rent earned because of the inherent value of the land is unearned, while the portion earned because of the improvements the landlords have made on the land due to their labor (or those they acquired the land from) is earned.
                                                                       

            I know I've read before that David F thought tax a land tax would be the less harmful tax  and I like his comeback . He is right if you think  a flat income tax is best you probally don't think 100% should be the flat rate or to compare it to Georges idea 90% of the rental value, now 2% to 20% might be more like it, if the tax did not go over say 10% of a persons income. If 10% is good enough for God it should be good enough for the government.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!