 Author
|
Topic: What is "developed" land? (Read 9442 times)
|
|
dude6935
|
Why would I pay someone to dump garbage in their landfill when I could dump it in the free land? Landfills cost money to operate... dumping on "free land" costs nothing. Which free land? Land that is in common use, or land that you have claimed as yours? That is the only free land. Because most people believe they can be more productive doing other things than farming. I know where you are coming from, but homeless people wouldn't suddenly move out to farms and start a homestead if there was free land. They are either too addicted to crack, too mentally unstable, or just can't handle any amount of responsibility. Some would. The only people who would take advantage of free land would be the big businesses that have to store their waste and dispose of it in accordance to law, etc.
You'd end up subsidizing the wealthiest legal entities in our society, not helping the poorest. The land would only be free if a person claims an unclaimed amount of land below a certain value threshold. If a big business claims more than a small amount of land value, they would have to pay rent because the value of their total land holdings is high. You can when that right is enforced by everyone else. Someone was granted exclusionary rights by other members of society a long time ago for whatever reason... and they also have the right to transfer their exclusionary rights around.
It's not a single person granting you rights, it's a single person transferring their rights (which are granted by society). Ok, but I don't think society should grant that right of exclusion without society being compensated. Come on, this whole gold/land thing is ridiculous. There will be a point in time when it will be impossible to extract even SOME gold. We would have extracted all the gold that was worth extracting. Everything that remains will either be undiscovered gold, or gold that is too difficult to extract, or gold that costs more to extract than what it's worth on the market.
It's the same as what's going on with land. We've already discovered all the land... we've already appropriated it. Now the only unappropriated land is either land that is too difficult to appropriate (moon), or would cost more than the value of having it (underwater city). I agree. Today land is finite for all practical purposes. Gold isn't finite today for all practical purposes. So when this changes, I will change my position. Did you look at the Law of Rent?
Yes, I responded to it as well. Hmm, I missed the response. It is mostly about wages. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
Why would I pay someone to dump garbage in their landfill when I could dump it in the free land? Landfills cost money to operate... dumping on "free land" costs nothing. Which free land? Land that is in common use, or land that you have claimed as yours? That is the only free land. If there was just a bunch of "free land" that was not exclusively claimed by anyone... who would be there to stop me from throwing my trash on it? Or to stop me from testing explosives on it? Or to stop me from digging up the dirt and selling it as potting mix? Because most people believe they can be more productive doing other things than farming. I know where you are coming from, but homeless people wouldn't suddenly move out to farms and start a homestead if there was free land. They are either too addicted to crack, too mentally unstable, or just can't handle any amount of responsibility. Some would. Those "some" would then be able to rent/buy land now and probably wouldn't be homeless. (well, at least not terminally homeless). The only people who would take advantage of free land would be the big businesses that have to store their waste and dispose of it in accordance to law, etc.
You'd end up subsidizing the wealthiest legal entities in our society, not helping the poorest. The land would only be free if a person claims an unclaimed amount of land below a certain value threshold. If a big business claims more than a small amount of land value, they would have to pay rent because the value of their total land holdings is high. If you can claim unclaimed land, then everyone would claim up the "free" land... and then there would be no more left. Then what? Back to where we are now. You can when that right is enforced by everyone else. Someone was granted exclusionary rights by other members of society a long time ago for whatever reason... and they also have the right to transfer their exclusionary rights around.
It's not a single person granting you rights, it's a single person transferring their rights (which are granted by society). Ok, but I don't think society should grant that right of exclusion without society being compensated. I agree. But they should be compensated only for the cost of protecting or guaranteeing those rights of exclusion--not compensated so they can sit around doing nothing. Come on, this whole gold/land thing is ridiculous. There will be a point in time when it will be impossible to extract even SOME gold. We would have extracted all the gold that was worth extracting. Everything that remains will either be undiscovered gold, or gold that is too difficult to extract, or gold that costs more to extract than what it's worth on the market.
It's the same as what's going on with land. We've already discovered all the land... we've already appropriated it. Now the only unappropriated land is either land that is too difficult to appropriate (moon), or would cost more than the value of having it (underwater city). I agree. Today land is finite for all practical purposes. Gold isn't finite today for all practical purposes. So when this changes, I will change my position. Gold and land are finite. I might not know how much you weigh, but that does not mean your weight is infinite. I know you weigh a finite amount. I know there is a finite amount of gold--but I do not know what those amounts are. Did you look at the Law of Rent?
Yes, I responded to it as well. Hmm, I missed the response. It is mostly about wages. [/quote] Let's talk about that on the other thread. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dude6935
|
If there was just a bunch of "free land" that was not exclusively claimed by anyone... who would be there to stop me from throwing my trash on it? Or to stop me from testing explosives on it? Or to stop me from digging up the dirt and selling it as potting mix? It would be illegal to harm land you don't claim. You don't vandalize the post office. It is (nearly) the same thing. If you can claim unclaimed land, then everyone would claim up the "free" land... and then there would be no more left. Then what? Back to where we are now. Unclaimed land would only become unclaimed because of the tax. This would continue in perpetuity and new land would become available when people abandon land. I agree. But they should be compensated only for the cost of protecting or guaranteeing those rights of exclusion--not compensated so they can sit around doing nothing. I don't want welfare either. We haven't really talked about where the revenue goes. It could pay for the army, police, fire, or it could pay a dividend to the people. I haven't stated a preference on this. Gold and land are finite. I might not know how much you weigh, but that does not mean your weight is infinite. I know you weigh a finite amount. I know there is a finite amount of gold--but I do not know what those amounts are. You know the difference. If society wants to control more gold, they can mine more gold. Society can't create a significant amount on new habitable space. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
If there was just a bunch of "free land" that was not exclusively claimed by anyone... who would be there to stop me from throwing my trash on it? Or to stop me from testing explosives on it? Or to stop me from digging up the dirt and selling it as potting mix? It would be illegal to harm land you don't claim. You don't vandalize the post office. It is (nearly) the same thing. And who would stop me? Are there gonna be cops patrolling the free lands? If I am not "free" to do whatever I want, then what makes it free land? The fact that I can exist in that space without paying anyone as long as I adhere to the use restrictions? Isn't that what public parks are? If you can claim unclaimed land, then everyone would claim up the "free" land... and then there would be no more left. Then what? Back to where we are now. Unclaimed land would only become unclaimed because of the tax. This would continue in perpetuity and new land would become available when people abandon land. People don't abandon land now and we still tax it. They just pay the tax and continue owning it. Those that don't pay lose their land, and a new owner willing to pay taxes takes their place. It would be no different than it is now... I agree. But they should be compensated only for the cost of protecting or guaranteeing those rights of exclusion--not compensated so they can sit around doing nothing. I don't want welfare either. We haven't really talked about where the revenue goes. It could pay for the army, police, fire, or it could pay a dividend to the people. I haven't stated a preference on this. The only thing I don't like about the whole "economic rent" and "compensation" crap is the redistribution of wealth part. I am fine with land taxes... as long as they aren't used to compensate freeloaders. However... why even bother with all the economic rent calculations and all that... why not just collect the money it takes to provide the services you are charging for? If it takes $X to pay for the Army... collect $X dollars. No need to hire bureaucrats to go around calculating land productivity potentials and economic rents and this and that in order to collect $Y... just collect what is needed--that's the most efficient way. Gold and land are finite. I might not know how much you weigh, but that does not mean your weight is infinite. I know you weigh a finite amount. I know there is a finite amount of gold--but I do not know what those amounts are. You know the difference. If society wants to control more gold, they can mine more gold. Society can't create a significant amount on new habitable space. Currently, if society wants to control more gold they could attempt to mine more gold. But also, even now, if society wanted to create a significant amount of habitable new space... we could. Especially the US. Countries like Holland and United Arab Emirates have created land... if we really needed to we could also. It's just that we aren't going to go make a bunch of man-made islands off the coast of FL so that we can give them away for free... it costs money to do that, if we were going to create free housing for some members of our society it would be cheaper to buy up some of the land for sale that already exists. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dude6935
|
And who would stop me? Are there gonna be cops patrolling the free lands? If I am not "free" to do whatever I want, then what makes it free land? The fact that I can exist in that space without paying anyone as long as I adhere to the use restrictions?
Isn't that what public parks are? Yes, police would enforce the law. Yes, unclaimed land would be like a public park. People don't abandon land now and we still tax it. They just pay the tax and continue owning it. Those that don't pay lose their land, and a new owner willing to pay taxes takes their place. It would be no different than it is now... Yah, we have a small land value tax now. Abandonment and forfeiture are same thing in the scope of this discussion. I want to eliminate all taxes except the LVT. The only thing I don't like about the whole "economic rent" and "compensation" crap is the redistribution of wealth part.
I am fine with land taxes... as long as they aren't used to compensate freeloaders. However... why even bother with all the economic rent calculations and all that... why not just collect the money it takes to provide the services you are charging for?
If it takes $X to pay for the Army... collect $X dollars. No need to hire bureaucrats to go around calculating land productivity potentials and economic rents and this and that in order to collect $Y... just collect what is needed--that's the most efficient way. Collect it how? By taxing productivity? That is worse. It carries negative economic consequences. Currently, if society wants to control more gold they could attempt to mine more gold. But also, even now, if society wanted to create a significant amount of habitable new space... we could. Especially the US.
Countries like Holland and United Arab Emirates have created land... if we really needed to we could also. It's just that we aren't going to go make a bunch of man-made islands off the coast of FL so that we can give them away for free... it costs money to do that, if we were going to create free housing for some members of our society it would be cheaper to buy up some of the land for sale that already exists.
The sea is already habitable. Putting dirt on it increases its value, but it isn't new habitable space. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
And who would stop me? Are there gonna be cops patrolling the free lands? If I am not "free" to do whatever I want, then what makes it free land? The fact that I can exist in that space without paying anyone as long as I adhere to the use restrictions?
Isn't that what public parks are? Yes, police would enforce the law. Except nobody pays taxes on free land... so where does the money to hire the cops come from? If I own land, I pay taxes, cops protect it. Nobody pays for protection of free land... so that means landowners have to pay for it through their taxes. Landowners pay to protect it, while non-land-owners get to use it for free... that doesn't seem fair. For me to pay for stuff that other people use... Yes, unclaimed land would be like a public park. We already have public parks... so this type of land already exists then? People don't abandon land now and we still tax it. They just pay the tax and continue owning it. Those that don't pay lose their land, and a new owner willing to pay taxes takes their place. It would be no different than it is now... Yah, we have a small land value tax now. Abandonment and forfeiture are same thing in the scope of this discussion. I want to eliminate all taxes except the LVT. Okay, so then we would expect to see similar rates of abandonment and forfeiture as we do now... so that wouldn't be different... The only thing I don't like about the whole "economic rent" and "compensation" crap is the redistribution of wealth part.
I am fine with land taxes... as long as they aren't used to compensate freeloaders. However... why even bother with all the economic rent calculations and all that... why not just collect the money it takes to provide the services you are charging for?
If it takes $X to pay for the Army... collect $X dollars. No need to hire bureaucrats to go around calculating land productivity potentials and economic rents and this and that in order to collect $Y... just collect what is needed--that's the most efficient way. Collect it how? By taxing productivity? That is worse. It carries negative economic consequences. Well, there are many potential ways to collect it. Could be done through a yearly "citizenship fee" or compulsory X number of years of public service to those who can't pay the fee, etc. I think property tax makes most sense since essentially that is what the army/police protects--property. Currently, if society wants to control more gold they could attempt to mine more gold. But also, even now, if society wanted to create a significant amount of habitable new space... we could. Especially the US.
Countries like Holland and United Arab Emirates have created land... if we really needed to we could also. It's just that we aren't going to go make a bunch of man-made islands off the coast of FL so that we can give them away for free... it costs money to do that, if we were going to create free housing for some members of our society it would be cheaper to buy up some of the land for sale that already exists.
The sea is already habitable. Putting dirt on it increases its value, but it isn't new habitable space. The sea is already habitable? Then all one would need to do is go live on the sea if they do not wish to buy/rent space in the US. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dude6935
|
Except nobody pays taxes on free land... so where does the money to hire the cops come from? If I own land, I pay taxes, cops protect it. Nobody pays for protection of free land... so that means landowners have to pay for it through their taxes. Landowners pay to protect it, while non-land-owners get to use it for free... that doesn't seem fair. For me to pay for stuff that other people use... It would be free for everyone to use. And the funding comes from the damages paid to compensate for exclusion. We already have public parks... so this type of land already exists then? Yah. But there would be more of it. It would be a public resource in areas with low land value. Privatively operated, for-profit parks would operate in high value areas and would be demonstrably productive. Okay, so then we would expect to see similar rates of abandonment and forfeiture as we do now... so that wouldn't be different... If the tax rate is raised there would be more abandonment. Well, there are many potential ways to collect it. Could be done through a yearly "citizenship fee" or compulsory X number of years of public service to those who can't pay the fee, etc. I think property tax makes most sense since essentially that is what the army/police protects--property. I believe a head tax is forbidden in the constitution. But ok, a property tax is better than all the other taxes. The sea is already habitable? Then all one would need to do is go live on the sea if they do not wish to buy/rent space in the US.
OK, you have a point. You could live on the sea, but probably not permanently. You would be increasing its habitability. But that is super expensive and probably illegal for an individual to do. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
Yah. But there would be more of it. It would be a public resource in areas with low land value. Privatively operated, for-profit parks would operate in high value areas and would be demonstrably productive. So, essentially you just want more public parks in low-value areas? And for people living in high-value areas to pay for them? Low value areas usually don't have anyone living there because they are not desirable locations. I doubt having a bigger park in the Arizona desert would really result in more people using that space to live. And I would be pissed off if I had to pay for cops to patrol a desert that nobody wants to use in the first place. Okay, so then we would expect to see similar rates of abandonment and forfeiture as we do now... so that wouldn't be different... If the tax rate is raised there would be more abandonment.[/quote] Yeah... the poorest people would be the first to abandon their land. The rich would therefore grow more powerful. If you raised the taxes high enough, eventually there would be revolution. Remember how pissed off the colonists were about their taxes? And that was just for TEA... imagine if they got taxed heavily for space in which to live... OK, you have a point. You could live on the sea, but probably not permanently. You would be increasing its habitability. But that is super expensive and probably illegal for an individual to do.
It's not illegal. International waters are not under anyone's jurisdiction... you can do whatever you want there. You can do whatever you want in Somali waters too, it seems like. Also, you might like this: http://www.freedomship.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dude6935
|
So, essentially you just want more public parks in low-value areas? And for people living in high-value areas to pay for them? Not really. All unclaimed lands would be like parks. Claimed lands can be whatever. If you want to use a block in New York for a park, do it. But pay for your privilege to exclude. Yeah... the poorest people would be the first to abandon their land. The rich would therefore grow more powerful. If you raised the taxes high enough, eventually there would be revolution. Remember how pissed off the colonists were about their taxes? And that was just for TEA... imagine if they got taxed heavily for space in which to live... If people can make their land meet its productive potential they can afford to exclude others from using it. If they claim low value land (or no land), it is free. It's not illegal. International waters are not under anyone's jurisdiction... you can do whatever you want there. You can do whatever you want in Somali waters too, it seems like. Also, you might like this: http://www.freedomship.com/LOL international waters..!? That is miles off of the coast. That is totally implausible to do with dirt. You would have to build an oil platform type of thing with millions of dollars. Not to mention we are talking about land inside the US. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
If people can make their land meet its productive potential they can afford to exclude others from using it. If they claim low value land (or no land), it is free.
Here is what I would do in this system if I was rich. First, I'd claim any free space I could and start excluding others, paying for this privilege with low taxes. Lets say tax rates were 30% across the board. Some people can no longer afford to pay taxes on their properties... so they abandon them. Being so rich, I buy up these properties, demolish the single family homes, and put up apartment complexes. Those people who abandoned their properties still have to live somewhere... and since I claimed up all the free land in the area they can't go pitch a tent up there. "Luckily" for them I have apartments for rent which are now built on top of where their homes used to be. Now they pay me $X to live on the same space they used to live on, except with more people. They have a shittier quality of life (since they have to share space with others) while I, the guy who was already rich, make a profit. So what ends up happening? I effectively buy up/claim land to keep people from using it so that they have no other options but to rent from me... thus fulfilling the "productive potential" of the high-value land. This way I can afford to pay the high taxes, while still earning a profit. Who are the winners/losers in this world? The people who are forced to abandon their land because they can't afford the property taxes? Or those rich enough to manipulate the markets and exploit those poor people. LOL international waters..!? That is miles off of the coast. That is totally implausible to do with dirt. You would have to build an oil platform type of thing with millions of dollars.
Not to mention we are talking about land inside the US.
Yeah, I didn't say it was free... or could be done with dirt. But if you get 1000 people to chip in $300k, then you've got $300 million to play with. An oil platform is only like $50million... Would you pay $300k to live in a libertopia? No taxes, no laws, do whatever you like, etc. There was a group with plans to do just that if the Greeks would sell off one of their big inhabitable islands for $300million... not sure whatever happened with that. $300k is not unreasonable by any means. It's a bit on the high-end of what typical mortgages go for in the US... but it's not cost-prohibitive by any stretch of the imagination... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dude6935
|
Why are all these people so unable to pay taxes that they can't stay in their home? People will abandon wilderness that they own before they will abandon the site their home is on. They won't be paying income tax, so if they work, they should be able to afford a tax on their land value if it is over the exemption. You can't buy all the land. Other people will buy land too. Some people will rent out land they already own or build apartments. You can't control the entire market. You could certainly make money renting out apartments, but so can everyone else. You will be paying tax on land just to keep it out of use while others increase their profits for free. I think that would kill all your profits. What you describe would be very difficult to accomplish. People could just move to another area and stick you will all this extra land to pay taxes on. Yeah, I didn't say it was free... or could be done with dirt. But if you get 1000 people to chip in $300k, then you've got $300 million to play with. An oil platform is only like $50million... Would you pay $300k to live in a libertopia? No taxes, no laws, do whatever you like, etc.
There was a group with plans to do just that if the Greeks would sell off one of their big inhabitable islands for $300million... not sure whatever happened with that.
$300k is not unreasonable by any means. It's a bit on the high-end of what typical mortgages go for in the US... but it's not cost-prohibitive by any stretch of the imagination...
Well now we are talking about something else. But no, I can't afford $300K to live free. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
if they work, they should be able to afford a tax on their land
according to whom? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
Why are all these people so unable to pay taxes that they can't stay in their home? Cause LOTS of people live paycheck to paycheck as it is, and if you raise their yearly taxes from $1500 to $7000 (or something extreme enough to encourage land abandonment), they won't be able to pay it. Also, all of the wilderness land is already very low valued, with low taxes... cause most people want to live near their place of work. You'd be forcing those people out. You can't buy all the land. Other people will buy land too. Some people will rent out land they already own or build apartments. Yes, and there will be a handful of people who own the majority of the land and keep most of it off the market to price out poor people and create renters for the other land, which they rent for a profit to poor people who can't afford to pay the huge taxes which would be levied on them for their single-family houses near workplaces. You will be paying tax on land just to keep it out of use while others increase their profits for free. I think that would kill all your profits. How are others "increasing their profits" for free? In my land monopoly my profit would be calculated like this: Revenue from renters - all costs = profit. Taxes are included in the costs. I would just need to collect enough revenue to exceed my costs. This is accomplished by sticking in more renters per acre (i.e. taller rental units). Well now we are talking about something else. But no, I can't afford $300K to live free.
Right, but that's your responsibility... the rest of us can't afford to pay for you to live free either. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dude6935
|
if they work, they should be able to afford a tax on their land
according to whom? The status quo. Cause LOTS of people live paycheck to paycheck as it is, and if you raise their yearly taxes from $1500 to $7000 (or something extreme enough to encourage land abandonment), they won't be able to pay it.
Also, all of the wilderness land is already very low valued, with low taxes... cause most people want to live near their place of work. You'd be forcing those people out. This would be implemented by phasing out taxes on productivity and phasing in taxes on land value. Nothing drastic will happed on day 1. Yes, and there will be a handful of people who own the majority of the land and keep most of it off the market to price out poor people and create renters for the other land, which they rent for a profit to poor people who can't afford to pay the huge taxes which would be levied on them for their single-family houses near workplaces. You assume so much. Why would there be "huge taxes" on single family homes near workplaces? These properties pay taxes now. Their home value would no longer be taxed. It might be a wash for this property. How are others "increasing their profits" for free? If you drive up the price of renting, current landlords will make more money on the higher prices. Why not just build apartments and charge rent normally? That seems easier and less risky. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
if they work, they should be able to afford a tax on their land
according to whom? The status quo. Does "the status quo" have a name? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
