A Modest House Goes For $1.1 Million

[austrianecon]

As I stated before, the type of tax system means little if the politicians continuously borrow and swindle the money. While population fluctuated throughout the years, the overall decline is mainly due to the politicians themselves, not the tax system.

The only argument you have is that their LVT was not enough (an interesting argument for a so-called 'Austrian.') And I would happen to agree that the tax should have been even higher.

You think I am saying it's not enough (tax rate), I am saying it's a failed idea because it requires higher taxes. And I as an Austrian don't favor huge taxes but rather lower taxes. I am okay with property taxes (non-LVT) because it's a necessary "evil".

Sorry, a community college and a university plus some public projects alone would not account for an 80% decline.

It's like arguing with my wife, facts just don't get in her way. Let's address the first part..

Harrisburg's Industrial and Downtown area was 67% (round up from 66.6%) vacant according to Stephen Reed. Land Value Taxation ? The Harrisburg Experience

Have you ever been to Harrisburg? During the 1980s or even in the last 5 years? I was last there a month ago and will be going there again next week. So let me tell you about Harrisburg from almost 30 years ago and today and who built what.

Harrisburg University of Science and Tech sits in downtown Harrisburg, Temple University Harrisburg, Whitaker Center and All were built with city and state money. International House, International Place wouldn't be built without the later. The place that anchor it is Strawberry Square which was being built during the late 70's before land value tax came into play.

Those buildings and projects I list account for 60% of the downtown (by land). So 60% of the "re-development" is funded by the State, City, and Federal money and without it, most of the other projects wouldn't have happened.. so how does LVT the magical answer you come to when I can simply show you development was taking place before LVT and those that did, did so because of public financing. Now what about that other 20% you say.. well without that 60% of development why would the other 20% be there? So in all 100% of the development happened due to public financing not LVT.

You can check this all out..central source so you can check all of those I list. Downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ignore basic economics: that when a tax is high enough, speculation is less attractive, while utilizing the land becomes much more attractive.

No, I am ignoring Georgian hooey, there is a difference. Speculation is needed because it's part and parcel of finding a median price. When the market (whatever item) is going up there are speculators betting (not really betting, taking a calculated risk) against the rising tide just as there are those bidding it up. Then when the market is going down there are those who are betting it'll go up. This part of pricing mechanism. 65% of Americans are speculators by your definition. They hope their homes and land go up in value to erase the trust cost of buying that land and home (mortgage cost, $150,000 @4.32% for 30 years is actually $268,000). Every year their home value goes up they build up equity. Every year that value goes down they lose equity. Today's society relies on that equity. Remove speculation, you crush 65% of Americans overnight. But nah.. George is a genius, right?

By the way, check out Hong Kong and it's housing bubble with an LVT. Despite Volume Drop, Hong Kong Real Estate Prices Get Even More Ludicrous - Forbes

So are you ready to admit that their population decline had nothing to do with LVT? Or are you going to continue promoting that lie?

You still don't get it.. You are giving credit to LVT for the 40,000 building permits, all that re-development and Harrisburg, yet you won't take credit for the population decline during the LVT period? How politician of you.

I never claimed that LVT will automatically save cities. For the third time, the tax system means nothing if the politicians spend the money poorly. LVT benefitted Harrisburg, but even LVT couldn't save the city from the overall corruption.

LVT didn't benefit Harrisburg, Public Financing did as I've shown above. You would know this if you didn't have such a hard on for Georgian theory and actually looked under the covers of peddled bs from those corrupted Harrisburg politicians. Harrisburg is broke because it publicly financed it's redevelopment and didn't grow it's tax base to cover those costs. Since Harrisburg relied heavily on LVT, it failed because Harrisburg can only tax the land that fell under it's jurisdiction like every other city. That is the reality, it's the reality of why Harrisburg has upped it's income tax because they know now you can't squeeze blood out of a the turnip (land).

It's why LVT will always fail in a system in which society gains are done so by public financing. That means every city, state or uncle sam can never do it. It works in Hong Kong because Hong Kong owns all the land and keeps prices so high to pay for it's public spending. But just to live in a "cage" in Hong Kong cost close to $167 a month. Hong Kong’s housing crisis forces poorest residents to live in metal cages | National Post

That is the future you want. Sorry bud.. I am not buying and never have advocated many of Hong Kong's polices.

What I argue for is private property in the things we make, but with property in the commons (the natural world) there must be compromises. A man cannot just simply swim upon an island, put a stake in the ground, declare it his 'property' and kick off anyone else who follows. If a man is to control prime real estate that he did not create (or buy from someone who did create it) then he should reimburse the local community for the portion of the commons they are denied. Same goes for corporations who hold natural monopolies (btw, most of those companies only got where they are through govt intervention).

What do you think paying property taxes are? It's paying the community (city) money. I.E reimbursing the community. So your argument for Georgian hooey is muted on this point. It already happens.

Communities should have a say in the quality and costs over their electricity as they cannot have the alternative options they normally have in a free market system.And I am not speaking from a communist view, I am speaking from a classical liberal view. Many of them held the very same views I hold on property and the commons.

No, Communities (anti-free market) shouldn't have a say as that would be a monopoly as well. Democratic or not, it's a monopoly and you are against monopolies so show some consistencies.

While economics is not itself a science, one could use scientific method to study the effects of say, certain tax policies. But I cannot wait for your next red herring!

No, you can't use the scientific method of the hard sciences in economics. There are too many variables in the real world to control an experiment (i.e, nothing is fixed, see Game Theory and Chaos Theory). So there is lot of causation v. correlation problems in economics. Prof. Roger Martin did a great article on this.
The limits of the scientific method in economics and the world | The Great Debate

Nowhere did I say I was wrong. I am aware that the size of the Earth was different billions of years ago. It started as a rock and was continously bombarded by other rocks until it became a planet. Earth becoming a planet didn't create more space, it simply occupied more space.

And as the Earth started as a rock and went through it's process did the earth gain more land?

Through science we discover truths. But things don't suddenly become true or untrue just because we discover it. Even when most scientists accepted the idea of a young earth it didn't change the fact that the Earth is over 4 billion years old.

Science doesn't discover truths, it rather confirms assumptions and some times rightly or wrongly. The Earth is young compared to rest of space.

But you cannot make oil (or land) out of nothing. In order to add somewhere, you have to subtract somewhere.

No. Every fall trees loose their leaves. Those leaves create soil (land) and adds to the surface of the earth. You can't subtract something that natural happens!

Then why are you using science to argue your point but then state "well science changes every 100 years anyways." There is overwhelming evidence than expansive earth theory is wrong. I doubt very much scientists are going back to it just as they are unlikely to go back to hollow earth theories.

I was pointing out science changes and the change that has happened in the last 100 years because you and I don't know the future changes. :lol:

But anyways, we are going on a tangent and we need to re-direct the debate to the main issue: taxation and land. You say one of the absolutes is taxes. Okay, so do you believe as most Austrians that a govt run through donations alone is feasible? Or that a property tax system based on taxing capital (HA! A so-called 'capitalist' advocating taxes on capital), would be better than taxation of land itself?

Austrians have different views and most don't believe in Government can run through donations and those who do say that are Anarchist but most think you should put your taxes towards programs you choose. I am not one of those as I am a libertarian and find no problem with property tax such as I pay now because it's localized and believe in stronger local power over State and Federal power. I do not believe in taxing labor. The difference between you and I is I don't think I owe land rents to society for property ownership.

You only re-stated what I said. The water has value just as dry land has value. Therefore, the price (and taxes) for access to prime land or water are higher.

Btw, when it comes to houseboats, marinas (and indirectly the homeowners) pay property taxes for living on the water.

Water becomes valuable through labor like land. There is that pesky word again, Labor. Houseboats are taxed as if they are land, not the water they sit on.

But to answer your earlier question, I do not believe using or having access to water should be taxed, just as I don't believe using or accessing dry land should be taxed. It is the exclusion of others to what was once the commons that should be taxed.

Which is fine, I don't, the reason for a tax or fee for the usage of each should not be based on denial of the commons but the usage of it. There is a slight difference in between our thinking. Mainly being the rents portion of it.

Do I have to ask for proof once again? Damn, I thought you got a degree in economics, you should be used to this. Where are your sources?!

Let's use some logic here.. property tax is basically flat tax for the area that tax encompasses. It's the assessments that make the difference.

That is bunk.

Bunk how? Something only becomes an asset if you actually use it. I can own a million acres of virgin forest but if I do nothing with it the value is the cost of the land. When I use that land for logging does the perceived value become realized.

One cannot value something if there is no potential in utilizing it.

Maybe you need to be more clear as people value old photos and they have no utilizing power that can be economically measured. So what are you wishing to utilize? But with that said.. land isn't valued on utilizing it.

You stated, "there is no value in something until labor is used." (Past Tense) That is flatout false. One could have value in something for potential use, not just once labor is applied.

That value (extrinsic) is based upon calculation of labor and output.

 

[Geoist]

You think I am saying it's not enough (tax rate), I am saying it's a failed idea because it requires higher taxes.

There is absolutely no reason to believe LVT leads to higher taxes on anything other than land values. Nearly every LVT advocate wants lower taxes (or no taxes) on just about everything else. That is why they are historically called 'SIngle Taxers.' They are as vocal as anyone about how destructive most taxes are on freedom and work.

And I as an Austrian don't favor huge taxes but rather lower taxes. I am okay with property taxes (non-LVT) because it's a necessary "evil".

Which makes no sense whatsoever. How could you possibly be okay with property taxes (which cover both land values and capital) but so vehemently opposed to LVT (which only covers land values)? Most current property taxes punish those who are productive with the land, provide jobs, and improve the overall value of their communities.

Have you ever been to Harrisburg? During the 1980s or even in the last 5 years? I was last there a month ago and will be going there again next week. So let me tell you about Harrisburg from almost 30 years ago and today and who built what.

Harrisburg University of Science and Tech sits in downtown Harrisburg, Temple University Harrisburg, Whitaker Center and All were built with city and state money. International House, International Place wouldn't be built without the later. The place that anchor it is Strawberry Square which was being built during the late 70's before land value tax came into play.
Those buildings and projects I list account for 60% of the downtown (by land). So 60% of the "re-development" is funded by the State, City, and Federal money and without it, most of the other projects wouldn't have happened.. so how does LVT the magical answer you come to when I can simply show you development was taking place before LVT and those that did, did so because of public financing. Now what about that other 20% you say.. well without that 60% of development why would the other 20% be there? So in all 100% of the development happened due to public financing not LVT.

I was born in 1986, and was only in Pennsylvania once in 1989 when I was still a toddler, so what I know is from research, documentaries, and articles.

While public spending played a role, one cannot ignore the impact of lowering the portion of the tax on improvements and substituting that with a higher tax on the land value.

Reed, who continued as mayor until January 2010, credits the reform with playing a major part in reversing the city's downward slide. Most of the 5,200 stores and housing units that were boarded-up when he took office are replaced or back in use. Since then, new construction and rehabilitation of existing structures increased the city's taxable real estate from $212 million to over $1.6 billion. Businesses on the tax rolls rose from 1,908 to more than 9,100 by the start of 2009. Seeing these positive effects, Harrisburg reduced its tax rate on improvements to one-sixth the rate on land.
Archives | icma.org

No, I am ignoring Georgian hooey, there is a difference.

It can hardly be called 'hooey.' It is accepted as reality by economists of various schools (everyone from Milton Friedman to Joseph Stigletz), scientists (like Albert Einstein), and enlightenment thinkers (like Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Francois Quesnay, and many more).

Speculation is needed because it's part and parcel of finding a median price. When the market (whatever item) is going up there are speculators betting (not really betting, taking a calculated risk) against the rising tide just as there are those bidding it up. Then when the market is going down there are those who are betting it'll go up. This part of pricing mechanism.

And yet taxation of capital is fair game, huh? You never fail to contradict yourself just to oppose LVT.

65% of Americans are speculators by your definition.

In our current system, pretty much anyone who owns a piece of land is a speculator. But most homeowners own very little land compared to wealthy individuals and corporations that own large tracts of land. Most homeowners would end up paying less in taxes under an LVT system.

Most home owners pay less
Dozens of studies in dozens of cities have shown that most home owners pay less under land value tax than under property tax, and much less than under income taxes. The only exceptions we have seen are where only a small minority of residents can afford home ownership or where businesses have been so overtaxed that demand for business properties has been discouraged.
Land value tax: Saving Communities

They hope their homes and land go up in value to erase the trust cost of buying that land and home (mortgage cost, $150,000 @4.32% for 30 years is actually $268,000). Every year their home value goes up they build up equity. Every year that value goes down they lose equity. Today's society relies on that equity. Remove speculation, you crush 65% of Americans overnight.

Overnight? I can tell you are playing the role of Chicken Little as you will say just about any lie to make it seem LVT will cause the sky to fall. LVT advocates do not want an overnight transition. They believe in a gradual transition through a two-tier property tax system where tax on capital such as houses are lowered while tax on unimproved land value is increased. So no, your scenario does not follow LVT tax policy.

Furthermore, the transition benefits the homeowners as they tend to own little land. The average homeowner benefits from fewer taxes, each citizen receives a citizen's dividend from the collection of land values, socio-economics become more balanced, the community benefits.

But nah.. George is a genius, right?

He must have something right if other geniuses including Tolstoy, Einstein, Ford, and Dewey all revere his ideas.

By the way, check out Hong Kong and it's housing bubble with an LVT. Despite Volume Drop, Hong Kong Real Estate Prices Get Even More Ludicrous - Forbes

Oh no! Evil land value taxation must have caused the increase in housing prices!

Actually, read your own article on the cause of that crisis: Housing costs have been fuelled by easy credit thanks to ultralow interest rates that policymakers can’t raise because the currency is pegged to the dollar. Money flooding in from mainland Chinese and foreign investors looking for higher returns has exacerbated the rise.

You still don't get it.. You are giving credit to LVT for the 40,000 building permits, all that re-development and Harrisburg,

Because,

1. Common sense. Raise LVT on landholders and they will either sell or develop.
2. Experts link LVT to efficient and effective use of land.

Research worldwide from Australia, to Japan, to South Africa have seen positive impacts through LVT.
Henry George's Remedy: Part 4

yet you won't take credit for the population decline during the LVT period? How politician of you.

What does LVT have to do with the population decline? Nothing.

LVT didn't benefit Harrisburg, Public Financing did as I've shown above.

You have only shown that you can make a claim. You have provided few sources and absolutely none that have linked LVT to any of the negatives or linked public spending exclusively to what economists call 'Pennsylvania's rennaisance.'

You would know this if you didn't have such a hard on for Georgian theory and actually looked under the covers of peddled bs from those corrupted Harrisburg politicians.

Actually, I was an Austrian like you when I first heard about geoist theory. I was very skeptical, but the more I read about it the more it made sense.

Maybe if you didn't have a hardon for Mises you would see the sense in the policy.

Harrisburg is broke because it publicly financed it's redevelopment and didn't grow it's tax base to cover those costs. Since Harrisburg relied heavily on LVT, it failed because Harrisburg can only tax the land that fell under it's jurisdiction like every other city. That is the reality, it's the reality of why Harrisburg has upped it's income tax because they know now you can't squeeze blood out of a the turnip (land).

Harrisburg was already broke before LVT. As an Austrian, you should know that when you increase activity costs then that activity flees the jurisdiction.

Funny how a so-called 'Austrian' is making such anti-Austrian economic arguments.

What do you think paying property taxes are? It's paying the community (city) money.

With current property taxes you pay for both your improvements and the land values. It is a mix of the best and worst tax policies. Geoists want to eventually get rid of the current property tax system.

I.E reimbursing the community. So your argument for Georgian hooey is muted on this point. It already happens.

Shows how little you know about geoism. The taxation of land values varies from place-to-place. When the property tax is focused on improvements (as it is in many places), it actually discourages productivity. If I hold a site do you think I would be more likely to build on it if the tax on improvements was low-to-nonexistent or high? C'mon, this is 2+2 type stuff.

No, Communities (anti-free market)

Lol. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you claim communities are 'anti-free market?'

shouldn't have a say as that would be a monopoly as well. Democratic or not, it's a monopoly and you are against monopolies so show some consistencies.

I don't see how allowing the residents/consumers have a say when it comes to a company that holds position of privilege is a monopoly. That's like saying shareholders have a monopoly.


I will respond to the rest later.

 

[Geoist]

No, you can't use the scientific method of the hard sciences in economics. There are too many variables in the real world to control an experiment (i.e, nothing is fixed, see Game Theory and Chaos Theory). So there is lot of causation v. correlation problems in economics. Prof. Roger Martin did a great article on this.
The limits of the scientific method in economics and the world | The Great Debate

Roger Martin is wrong when he says, no credible economist predicted anything less rosy for the back half of 2008.

Geoist-Austrian economist Fred Foldvary, while not as wellknown as economists like Paul Krugman, had predicted it ten years prior: “the next major bust, 18 years after the 1990 downturn, will be around 2008, if there is no major interruption such as a global war.” (1997)
An Award for Calling the Crash · Econ Journal Watch: Fred Foldvary, crash of 2008, economic prediction, ethics, Real-world Economic Review

Geoist Fred Harrison also made the prediction. In the following article he predicts the housing (land) bubble would continue until 2008.
Bust will follow boom - but when? - MoneyWeek

Sure, the land cycle is not fixed. Of course, it can be disrupted by govt actions, wars, natural disasters, etc. But we can make fairly accurate forecasts judging from past cycles. On average, each one lasts 18 years before it bursts. So economics is not necessarily as chaotic and unpredictable as you like to make it seem.

And as the Earth started as a rock and went through it's process did the earth gain more land?

Please refer to the definition of land I was talking about (don't feel like linking it a third time).

Science doesn't discover truths, it rather confirms assumptions and some times rightly or wrongly.

Your claim was "science changes what is true or not true." My point was that truths don't change. Yes, sometimes scientists get things wrong, and as a result they promote falsehoods, not truths.

The Earth is young compared to rest of space.

Of course. I am referring to the fact most scientists once believed the Earth was much younger than we now believe.

No. Every fall trees loose their leaves. Those leaves create soil (land) and adds to the surface of the earth. You can't subtract something that natural happens!

Lol, sometimes you Rothbardians/Randroids/Miseans make me want to bang my head against the wall out of frustration. Of course, leaves turn to soil. That's my point. You cannot create something out of nothing, and you cannot add more soil somewhere without subtracting it elsewhere.

Austrians have different views and most don't believe in Government can run through donations and those who do say that are Anarchist but most think you should put your taxes towards programs you choose. I am not one of those as I am a libertarian and find no problem with property tax such as I pay now because it's localized and believe in stronger local power over State and Federal power.

My views are a mix of libertarian/anarchist/mutualist/geoist. Therefore, I believe LVT should be done on a local level. But I believe that society without 'govt' is impossible. If we removed all forms of public govt today then others will fill the void, whether they are cooperatives, guilds, corporations, etc. Most anarchists realize this and are therefore not necessarily anti-govt but anti-State.

I do not believe in taxing labor.

Actually, you do. You said you have no problem with taxing someone more when they improve upon the land they hold.

The difference between you and I is I don't think I owe land rents to society for property ownership.

The differences between you and me:
1. I don't believe in taxing anyone's work OR the fruits of their work (which includes the very capital you wish to tax.)
2. I believe that there is something called community-generated wealth. It explains how site values go up when we build roads, schools, and hospitals. Those values are what should be taxed, as they belong to the community and not a few siteholders who did nothing to earn it.
3. Unlike you, I don't believe in taxing someone for just creating or using something. I only believe in taxing someone for denying others access to what nature provides.

Water becomes valuable through labor like land.

Once again, potential for utility/labor can also make it valuable.

Houseboats are taxed as if they are land, not the water they sit on.

*BANGS HEAD ON WALL* Houseboats are ON water. A property tax is paid for these boats that are ON THE WATER.

Which is fine, I don't, the reason for a tax or fee for the usage of each should not be based on denial of the commons but the usage of it.

This seems so backwards to me. Why on Earth would a libertarian want to charge someone for being productive? As libertarians, we should be advocating for people to be productive and self-reliant. But that is made much more difficult when the resources/land are locked up or difficult to access for the majority of individuals. And taxes on capital certainly don't help.

Let's use some logic here.. property tax is basically flat tax for the area that tax encompasses. It's the assessments that make the difference.

It is not logical and it is not flat. The more you produce and utilize, the more tax you pay. That is very unlibertarian.

Bunk how? Something only becomes an asset if you actually use it. I can own a million acres of virgin forest but if I do nothing with it the value is the cost of the land. When I use that land for logging does the perceived value become realized.

Think of it this way, what happens to the value of that land once it becomes completely deforested?

Maybe you need to be more clear as people value old photos and they have no utilizing power that can be economically measured.

Personal value is a little different from market value. Apples and oranges.

So what are you wishing to utilize? But with that said.. land isn't valued on utilizing it.

And we're back to my example of a virgin forest: it has not be used yet there can be a market value to it. Not because there was labor put into it, but because of the potential labor that can result in capital.

That value (extrinsic) is based upon calculation of labor and output.

When it comes to capital/improvements I think this is basically correct (isn't this the labor theory of value you are advocating, something most Austrians reject?). But I do not believe this always applies to the value of a site.

 

[austrianecon]

Roger Martin is wrong when he says, no credible economist predicted anything less rosy for the back half of 2008.

Geoist-Austrian economist Fred Foldvary, while not as wellknown as economists like Paul Krugman, had predicted it ten years prior: “the next major bust, 18 years after the 1990 downturn, will be around 2008, if there is no major interruption such as a global war.” (1997)
An Award for Calling the Crash · Econ Journal Watch: Fred Foldvary, crash of 2008, economic prediction, ethics, Real-world Economic Review

Geoist Fred Harrison also made the prediction. In the following article he predicts the housing (land) bubble would continue until 2008.
Bust will follow boom - but when? - MoneyWeek

Good for them, I predicted as well so did Ron Paul, Paul Schiff and others who reject LVT.

Sure, the land cycle is not fixed. Of course, it can be disrupted by govt actions, wars, natural disasters, etc. But we can make fairly accurate forecasts judging from past cycles. On average, each one lasts 18 years before it bursts. So economics is not necessarily as chaotic and unpredictable as you like to make it seem.

No, you can't. How many times can I explain to you looking at the past to figure out the future economic is what gets us in trouble in the first place?!?! You can fix the old problems but you can never predict the future problems without data and by the time the data comes in, the ship is already sinking.

Your claim was "science changes what is true or not true." My point was that truths don't change. Yes, sometimes scientists get things wrong, and as a result they promote falsehoods, not truths.

Truths do change. They've always changed. 40 years ago Science was worried about global cool, today they are running around with their heads of about global warming. In a span of 40 years the "truths" have changed on that matter. 40 years from now it'll change again. The truths about Earth have changed several times. A truth doesn't exist until a truth is discovered.

Lol, sometimes you Rothbardians/Randroids/Miseans make me want to bang my head against the wall out of frustration. Of course, leaves turn to soil. That's my point. You cannot create something out of nothing, and you cannot add more soil somewhere without subtracting it elsewhere.

But this a natural cycle. You aren't removing it from something. You are adding it to something. Planting a tree in downtown NYC would be adding. Cutting a tree down because it sits on unused land that you feel could be better utilized is removing it. So when I say leaving some lands alone in a city despite what you think is under utilizing that land, I am actually adding something. You on the other hand are destroying something in nature.

Actually, you do. You said you have no problem with taxing someone more when they improve upon the land they hold.

You are not taxing labor. You are taxing improvements a person chooses to make. There is no forcing someone to make improvements. :lol:

All taxes are paid via labor even your LVT as you have to work to pay it.

The differences between you and me:
1. I don't believe in taxing anyone's work OR the fruits of their work (which includes the very capital you wish to tax.)
2. I believe that there is something called community-generated wealth. It explains how site values go up when we build roads, schools, and hospitals. Those values are what should be taxed, as they belong to the community and not a few siteholders who did nothing to earn it.
3. Unlike you, I don't believe in taxing someone for just creating or using something. I only believe in taxing someone for denying others access to what nature provides.

1. All taxes are paid via labor.. there is no, ifs, ands or buts about it. You have to work to pay any form of taxes even a LVT.
2. Communities don't generate wealth. They confiscate wealth from others to build those things. If there is no State, those things would be build by the private not the public and you should understand that.
3. I am not taxing anyone for creating anything. Rather, I believe a fee should be paid for that improvement. It could be upfront one time fee in building permits which would raise the price of that building permit by hundreds of dollars (even thousands) or pay a flat fee of % over the time.

Once again, potential for utility/labor can also make it valuable.

If and only if that utility is reached. Unused land has minimal value, gold, oil, trees be damned. It's the improvement made to that land which allows the access to that resource that makes the land value go up.

*BANGS HEAD ON WALL* Houseboats are ON water. A property tax is paid for these boats that are ON THE WATER.

No, No, No.. houseboats are considered "floating" and depending on area, non taxable (in which the marina or such is taxed) or considered land structures and subject to land property tax. Nobody taxes the water in which the houseboat sits..

This seems so backwards to me. Why on Earth would a libertarian want to charge someone for being productive? As libertarians, we should be advocating for people to be productive and self-reliant. But that is made much more difficult when the resources/land are locked up or difficult to access for the majority of individuals. And taxes on capital certainly don't help.

LOL...

It is not logical and it is not flat. The more you produce and utilize, the more tax you pay. That is very unlibertarian.

It is flat. whatever % across the board. It's the value property and the items on that property that is changing. If you are reaching your full utilization you are still paying the same % as your neighbor.

Think of it this way, what happens to the value of that land once it becomes completely deforested?

And why did it become deforested? Could it be labor? And nobody does clear cutting in the 1st world anymore. So no property would be come deforested unless for farming or urbanization.

Personal value is a little different from market value. Apples and oranges.

Not really. As any person can over bid the market price if they really want it. So personal decisions come into play. Hence.. too many variables in economics to be a hard science.

And we're back to my example of a virgin forest: it has not be used yet there can be a market value to it. Not because there was labor put into it, but because of the potential labor that can result in capital.

Wrong.. there can be two values. "Real" (don't believe there is a set value) and Actual (laymen). Real is utilization value but actual value is it's untouched value, basically when land is sold and it has no improvements on it. You want to place value on land based on Real and I want to place value on Actual as actual value is cheaper on the front end for consumers.

When it comes to capital/improvements I think this is basically correct (isn't this the labor theory of value you are advocating, something most Austrians reject?). But I do not believe this always applies to the value of a site.

I am not advocating it. Just pointing out for us to reach that value labor has to be put in. So any land which is sold has to be valued at "Actual" value because labor hasn't be applied. And when that labor is put in.. real value will never be reached because value is subjective.
Picasa Web Albums - Lilburne2 - Human Action ...

 

[Aunt Spiker]

...because it is located nearby Google's headquarters.

View attachment 67150912



Perhaps it should be the community rather than a small minority benefiting from site values?

That doesn't make any sense. Why are expensive things suddenly community property?

But actually, they do benefit since property values rise reliant on the surrounding values. . .the one who loses is the retarded idiot who spent 1.1 M on a piece of **** home with a crap roof :roll: - not even that, but 1.1M on the little tiny minuscule plot of land it's sitting on. What is that, 1/4 of an acre?

Because of Loogle?

 

[Geoist]

Good for them, I predicted as well so did Ron Paul, Paul Schiff and others who reject LVT.

Ron Paul and Peter Schiff (don't know this 'Paul Schiff' guy, lol) do understand that governments and non-govt institutions help inflate these bubbles, unnaturally. But I don't think their 'solutions' would stop the cycle. After all, it has taken place for hundreds of years (before many of the regulations they blame).

Fred Foldvary and Fred Harrison were accurate in their prediction because they pay attention to the history of land cycles. On average, every 18 years the bubble bursts and restarts a new one.

Property Crash Cycle - Introduction to Fred Harrison's 18 Years - YouTube

No, you can't. How many times can I explain to you looking at the past to figure out the future economic is what gets us in trouble in the first place?!?!

Don't Austrians do that? Didn't you do that when you made your supposed prediction for 2008?

You can fix the old problems but you can never predict the future problems without data and by the time the data comes in, the ship is already sinking.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Truths do change. They've always changed.

Truths have to be in accordance with fact. Facts don't change.

40 years ago Science was worried about global cool, today they are running around with their heads of about global warming. In a span of 40 years the "truths" have changed on that matter. 40 years from now it'll change again. The truths about Earth have changed several times. A truth doesn't exist until a truth is discovered.

Once again, there are falsehoods and there are truths (facts). Due to our limited abilities as humans, sometimes we get the wrong information, or we misrepresent the right information. As a result, we promote falsehoods even if scientists try to represent those falsehoods as 'truth.'

But this a natural cycle. You aren't removing it from something. You are adding it to something.

No, in order to have the dirt to extend into the water you must take it from somewhere first.

Planting a tree in downtown NYC would be adding.

You think that tree grows through magic? It requires nutrients/soil for that tree to grow. Why do you think farmers have to rotate their crops?

Cutting a tree down because it sits on unused land that you feel could be better utilized is removing it. So when I say leaving some lands alone in a city despite what you think is under utilizing that land, I am actually adding something. You on the other hand are destroying something in nature.

Vacant city lots are hardly promoted as nature reserves.

The geoist system actually promotes natural preservation. You admitted it yourself with your claim that I would be "forcing" people to live in the city. In reality, I would be encouraging less sprawled living so that more of nature can be left alone.

You are not taxing labor. You are taxing improvements a person chooses to make.

You are taxing the fruits of their labor.

There is no forcing someone to make improvements.

Through your tax system you discourage improvements (since those are taxed more) and you encourage idleness.

All taxes are paid via labor even your LVT as you have to work to pay it.

The fact a siteholder can see an increase in his LVT without doing a thing with the site proves you are wrong. LVT reclaims the value of the work created by the community.

1. All taxes are paid via labor.. there is no, ifs, ands or buts about it. You have to work to pay any form of taxes even a LVT.

That is outright false. I demonstrated why that is above.

2. Communities don't generate wealth.

Then explain why land values go up when the community builds a hospital.

They confiscate wealth from others to build those things.

Individuals and private businesses increase land values when they build and improve. Are you saying that John Doe is confiscating wealth to build his business?

If there is no State, those things would be build by the private not the public and you should understand that.

What you Austrians need to understand is that a community is made up of more than just the govt.

3. I am not taxing anyone for creating anything. Rather, I believe a fee should be paid for that improvement.

That is taxation on their creations.

It could be upfront one time fee in building permits which would raise the price of that building permit by hundreds of dollars (even thousands) or pay a flat fee of % over the time.

Once again, you discourage growth and encourage keeping land out of use.

If and only if that utility is reached. Unused land has minimal value, gold, oil, trees be damned. It's the improvement made to that land which allows the access to that resource that makes the land value go up.

Improvements can make values go up, sure. But that land would not have nearly as much value if it wasn't for the untouched gold, oil, trees etc on that land.

No, No, No.. houseboats are considered "floating" and depending on area, non taxable (in which the marina or such is taxed) or considered land structures and subject to land property tax. Nobody taxes the water in which the houseboat sits..

You just admitted yourself that the marina pays a tax for the water they control.

LOL...

I see you have nothing of value to respond.

It is flat. whatever % across the board. It's the value property and the items on that property that is changing. If you are reaching your full utilization you are still paying the same % as your neighbor.

And the more you improve the more you pay. Tell me, how exactly is this is supposed to promote entrepreneurship, competition, and open market?

And why did it become deforested? Could it be labor? And nobody does clear cutting in the 1st world anymore. So no property would be come deforested unless for farming or urbanization.

My point is that labor can result in a lower value to that land. So your point that labor is the only source of increased value is wrong.


Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
Personal value is a little different from market value. Apples and oranges.

Not really. As any person can over bid the market price if they really want it. So personal decisions come into play. Hence.. too many variables in economics to be a hard science.

I am aware of the outliers/personal decisions.

We are gettin off-track again. I was addressing your point "If you don't log it (labor) its liability." How you got to "family pictures" from that is beyond me (and contradicts your point).

Maybe I should repeat what I already said before: You stated, "there is no value in something until labor is used." (Past Tense) That is flatout false. One could have value in something for potential use, not just once labor is applied.

Wrong.. there can be two values. "Real" (don't believe there is a set value) and Actual (laymen). Real is utilization value but actual value is it's untouched value, basically when land is sold and it has no improvements on it. You want to place value on land based on Real and I want to place value on Actual as actual value is cheaper on the front end for consumers.

Of course its cheaper when it is unimproved. But you have just proven my point: There is market value to untouched land.

 

[Geoist]

That doesn't make any sense. Why are expensive things suddenly community property?

When did I say that 'expensive things' are suddenly community property? Do you really think it is the house that is valued at $1.1 million?

But actually, they do benefit since property values rise reliant on the surrounding values. . .the one who loses is the retarded idiot who spent 1.1 M on a piece of **** home with a crap roof :roll: - not even that, but 1.1M on the little tiny minuscule plot of land it's sitting on. What is that, 1/4 of an acre?

Oh wait, you really do think its the house that is being valued at one million. Sigh. Let me ask you this, if that house was removed and it was being sold as an empty site, how much do you think it would be going for?

Because of Loogle?

What's a 'Loogle?' :2razz:

 

[austrianecon]

Ron Paul and Peter Schiff (don't know this 'Paul Schiff' guy, lol) do understand that governments and non-govt institutions help inflate these bubbles, unnaturally. But I don't think their 'solutions' would stop the cycle. After all, it has taken place for hundreds of years (before many of the regulations they blame).

Fred Foldvary and Fred Harrison were accurate in their prediction because they pay attention to the history of land cycles. On average, every 18 years the bubble bursts and restarts a new one.

Property Crash Cycle - Introduction to Fred Harrison's 18 Years - YouTube

And they don't think your solutions would stop the cycle either. Their position on regulations is just but one part. Easy "money" and hysteria is another. But they believe self-corrections need to happen and if they don't then the bubble didn't burst all the way as putting some level of arbitrary value on an item is putting a pricing floor on an item.

Don't Austrians do that? Didn't you do that when you made your supposed prediction for 2008?

No, Austrians don't do that. My prediction was earlier then that as I at the time worked for a Wall Street bank (now doesn't exist) and was kindly asked to leave because it didn't jive with the party as I wrote in traders memo that it would only take a 5-7% failure rate (we peaked at 20%). But my prediction didn't have anything to do with old models. I didn't look at "trend lines" over five year period with in housing markets or five year refis or new mortgages. Rather I looked at current housing costs and other debts vs wage incomes and found it was virtually impossible for a "middle" class family to afford the monthly mortgage in a subprime or alt-a loan as they were in debt at rates of 90 to 100% (if their income was 50,000, they would have debts near that or above it) . Both type of loans were the main mortgages issued.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

It does. After a crash happens there is tonnes of data that points to why. That's what we always "fix" (some times you can fix stupid). We don't know the next failure. So we always miss the data that will point to it. So it's when that next crash happens.. only a few see it and the mainstream economics (and society as a whole) is blindsided.

Truths have to be in accordance with fact. Facts don't change.

Facts have to be discovered. They may exist outside of discovery but it's not a known fact until discovered.

Once again, there are falsehoods and there are truths (facts). Due to our limited abilities as humans, sometimes we get the wrong information, or we misrepresent the right information. As a result, we promote falsehoods even if scientists try to represent those falsehoods as 'truth.'

And I don't disagree. But you have to acknowledge that fact is only known by what is discovered at that point in time.

No, in order to have the dirt to extend into the water you must take it from somewhere first.

How many Americans dump leaves into trash every year? You are taking an item discarded (useless to the common) and making use of it.

u think that tree grows through magic? It requires nutrients/soil for that tree to grow. Why do you think farmers have to rotate their crops?

You think a tree needs rotated soil? You think a tree needs humans?

Vacant city lots are hardly promoted as nature reserves.

You can turn vacant city lots into nature "reserves". You know... city parks like Central Park.

The geoist system actually promotes natural preservation. You admitted it yourself with your claim that I would be "forcing" people to live in the city. In reality, I would be encouraging less sprawled living so that more of nature can be left alone.

It does no such thing. Forcing people to live in the city is but one problem. You also have a problem of providing services, more people in the area larger power plants, water plants, and so on is needed. You have to destroy land to do that. In suburban sprawl, communities work with nature. Look at any suburb you want. You have community parks, massive amounts of trees and so on private property.

You are taxing the fruits of their labor.

No, I am taxing a choice.

Through your tax system you discourage improvements (since those are taxed more) and you encourage idleness.

Pretty sure.. you are wrong since it's been the tax policy for a better part of a few dozen decades (since 1796) in every town, except those 20 in PA (which most of them are considered distressed). US wouldn't have gone from a few million to 16 trillion in GDP if it encouraged idleness.

The fact a siteholder can see an increase in his LVT without doing a thing with the site proves you are wrong. LVT reclaims the value of the work created by the community.

Are you that dense? You physically have to work (earn money) to pay taxes. That means Joe Six pack has to work to pay his LVT.

That is outright false. I demonstrated why that is above.

Read above how you failed to get logic.

Then explain why land values go up when the community builds a hospital.

How did that community build that hospital? By collecting taxes on the individual. The rise in the value is due to realization of tax collection put to use as those taxes collected could be used for property improvement outside of Government involvement which could serve a greater utility to the individual.

Individuals and private businesses increase land values when they build and improve. Are you saying that John Doe is confiscating wealth to build his business?

No, read above.

What you Austrians need to understand is that a community is made up of more than just the govt.

And you need to understand sociology. Ferdinand Tönnies found there are two types of communities. 1) Gemeinschaft (community) which is akin to family or kinship. 2) Gesellschaft (society or association) which is what you are talking about (think a company). Gesellschaft is where a group of individuals are grouped together even though they have different wants and desires but work together. It requires some form of Governing.

Once again, you discourage growth and encourage keeping land out of use.

And your evidence?

Improvements can make values go up, sure. But that land would not have nearly as much value if it wasn't for the untouched gold, oil, trees etc on that land.

You physically have to improve the land to get to the gold, oil or trees.

You just admitted yourself that the marina pays a tax for the water they control.

No, they are taxed not for the water. They are taxed for the land. Marinas sit on land.

And the more you improve the more you pay. Tell me, how exactly is this is supposed to promote entrepreneurship, competition, and open market?

Let's do some math.. a property valued at $100,000 and taxed at 3% vs a property valued at $1,000,000 taxed at 3% as well.

$100,000 x .03 = 3,000.
$1,000,000 x .03 = 30,000.

So you gather the taxes paid will be 10x greater due to a 10:1 value difference. But the ratio of the Value of the Property to the amount of taxes paid will still be the same.

Now Value of property to Taxes paid ratio :
$100,000/3,000 = 33.33
$1,000,000/30,000 = 33.33

So despite the price difference the taxes will never give a diminishing return. For every dollar of improvement you will retain a .97 cents of return before realizing new utility from that improvement.

My point is that labor can result in a lower value to that land. So your point that labor is the only source of increased value is wrong.

And that's because the land's maximum utility was reached. You can't have it both ways. You either maximize utility and lose value over time or you don't.

I am aware of the outliers/personal decisions.

We are gettin off-track again. I was addressing your point "If you don't log it (labor) its liability." How you got to "family pictures" from that is beyond me (and contradicts your point).

Maybe I should repeat what I already said before: You stated, "there is no value in something until labor is used." (Past Tense) That is flatout false. One could have value in something for potential use, not just once labor is applied.

If you are aware of it then you know that then you would understand "family pictures" point. Each of us hold different values for different things.

Of course its cheaper when it is unimproved. But you have just proven my point: There is market value to untouched land.

No, there is no market value, just what you are willing to pay via your personal pricing. The market could set a value of $100,000 on a property, it doesn't mean it's gonna sell at that rate. It could sell more or lower depending on what the buyer is willing to spend. This makes personal preferences key in pricing.