Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm

No, no. I didn't bring it up as an objection to the LVT.

SJC and I spent several pages in another thread cornering that fool on LVT while he was SHRIEKING about how California oughta "raise taxes on the rich." We pointed out that money can (and does - especially in the case of Cali) leave town - land cannot.

Then he turns around and starts a thread - without ever admitting error. He's a **** turd.

in a way this thread is him admitting error.  Just in a weird way

roadkill » 24 Nov 2022, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:23 pm

What's the details on LVT?

it's also called The One Tax, cuz in theory it would replace all other taxes.  Government revenue would be cut to the bone

SJConspirator » 24 Nov 2022, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:29 pm

it's also called The One Tax, cuz in theory it would replace all other taxes.  Government revenue would be cut to the bone

Would it be subject to government smooth talk and adjustments to take us back to where we were in the first place?  Cause we all know the gov. wants a significant slice of the pie to keep their own interests intact.  

You did say " in theory it would replace all other taxes".  Should I assume "in theory" there would be no guarantee of that?

And is there the usual "the devil is in the details"?  

I just read this and it's a lot to digest because we both know often times things don't go as planned.

I just read the first page of this. I'm heading to bed soon so I can't effectively digest all of it especially cause it's new to me.

https://taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/g ... nd_tax.pdf
 
 
 

Selaphobia » 24 Nov 2022, 9:03 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:03 pm

No we do not. We need EVERYONE to pay income taxes and we need to cut spending.

Cutting spending appeals to me.   And not printing funny-money that exceeds to true value of things.
 

SJConspirator » 24 Nov 2022, 8:24 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:24 pm

in a way this thread is him admitting error.  Just in a weird way

Precisely. This is a weasel trying to get right without admitting WE were right. 

It's like how people respond to a turd. They can clean it up, or put a rug over it and pretend. He's a rug guy.
 

roadkill » 24 Nov 2022, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:23 pm

What's the details on LVT?

Well, you can google it. In this loser's other thread, I gave a link explaining how it actually works in a few rubber meets the road scenarios. 

Lessee can I find it again...

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... experiment
 

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:13 pm

Well, you can google it. In this loser's other thread, I gave a link explaining how it actually works in a few rubber meets the road scenarios. 

Lessee can I find it again...

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... experiment

I'll post this to my new thread...I'm heading to bed afterwards.

BTW...I clicked on peanut gallery on my new thread and it didn't take. I must have done something wrong...can you fix it?

roadkill » 24 Nov 2022, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:17 pm

I'll post this to my new thread...I'm heading to bed afterwards.

BTW...I clicked on peanut gallery on my new thread and it didn't take. I must have done something wrong...can you fix it?

Sorry, bro - it has already been posted in. What you can do is make a brand new one and make IT PG - and I will send the other away. Up to you. 

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 9:22 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:22 pm

Sorry, bro - it has already been posted in. What you can do is make a brand new one and make IT PG - and I will send the other away. Up to you.

I tried that before I executed the thread.  The words changed and it showed a "checkmark" so I thought it was good to go.


I'll start a new thread and try it again.   

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 9:22 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:22 pm

Sorry, bro - it has already been posted in. What you can do is make a brand new one and make IT PG - and I will send the other away. Up to you.

Looks like I've got it...please remove the first attempt and leave the PG thread.   TIA

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 7:49 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 7:49 pm

Not quite. Tax on land would go up, not down, under an LVT scheme. PRICES on land would go down. 

The biggest single effect it would have is on people who horde. It would **** them. RIGHT NOW, there are people hording land, preventing it from rising to its highest and best use. This is true of agricultural land, as well as municipal lots. That would end, right quick. Agricultural land would be farmed, sold, or abandoned. Vacant city lots would be built, sold, or abandoned. If abandoned, they could be got for the price of the back taxes. 

It would put a stop to urban sprawl. It would put a stop to farm-land hording. It would end the chinee buying up agricultural real estate, to keep it out of production.

I was being ....glib .
This is what I suspected...a way to force me to "make my land work" to some bureaucrat's expectations or else be forced to sell it and spend the rest of my iliving in some high density multi family housing unit with the rest of the Sardines..
 

roadkill » 24 Nov 2022, 9:32 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:32 pm

Looks like I've got it...please remove the first attempt and leave the PG thread.   TIA

already done - and I used your OP in the new thread to alert SJC.

He's the one who turned me on to LVT some months back. This issue is his hill. 

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:33 pm

already done - and I used your OP in the new thread to alert SJC.

He's the one who turned me on to LVT some months back. This issue is his hill.

Yep...I saw the SJ calling card.   Thanx .     

Catch you in the morning.   
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Nov 2022, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 9:33 pm

I was being ....glib .
This is what I suspected...a way to force me to "make my land work" to some bureaucrat's expectations or else be forced to sell it and spend the rest of my iliving in some high density multi family housing unit with the rest of the Sardines..

Not at all. If you're way the **** out in the country surrounded by big tracts and few services, using a well and a septic tank, you're in no danger of being taxed off your land. It isn't "some bureaucrat" that sets the tax rate. It's the Invisible Hand of the Market - the Holy of Holies. 

If you're one of these freeloaders who sits on empty lots in cities, passively waiting for the pressures of the market (the productive activities of OTHERS) to create unearned income by making your lot worth a million bucks, then, yeah - **** you and your sense of entitlement. 

I live on 29 acres at present - nearest neighbor over half a mile away by road. 

 
 

supraTruth4 » 23 Nov 2022, 10:13 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Nov 2022, 10:13 pm

We need a National Land Value Tax & a recalculated Income Tax that starts at the top & works down in order to shift the taxes back up and off the backs of the working middle class and barely rich small business owners!

by all means look at my land tax.  I earn 85,000.  My wife earns 46,000.  My home is valued at 525,000.  The land is a postage stamp.

Thanks!

roadkill » 24 Nov 2022, 8:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:54 pm

Would it be subject to government smooth talk and adjustments to take us back to where we were in the first place?  Cause we all know the gov. wants a significant slice of the pie to keep their own interests intact.

Well, here's the thing about the thing.

The LVT is inevitably the most voluntary tax ever invented. NO ONE has to pay an LVT, ever. 

If the government sets the rate too high, no one will use the land. It sits - fallow. Once the land comes under ownership, the LVT is set, and the game is afoot. The only detail-devil is in the valuation itself. The municipality puts in a bus line to serve the area, or a train line, the value is gonna go up at the next valuation. The rate does not change - but the value does. 

If the valuation is set too high, there's flight, blight, and no winner - just losers across the board. Naturally, the valuation process will have appeals and arbitration built in, one assumes. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 24 Nov 2022, 10:27 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 10:27 pm

Well, here's the thing about the thing.

The LVT is inevitably the most voluntary tax ever invented. NO ONE has to pay an LVT, ever. 

If the government sets the rate too high, no one will use the land. It sits - fallow. Once the land comes under ownership, the LVT is set, and the game is afoot. The only detail-devil is in the valuation itself. The municipality puts in a bus line to serve the area, or a train line, the value is gonna go up at the next valuation. The rate does not change - but the value does. 

If the valuation is set too high, there's flight, blight, and no winner - just losers across the board. Naturally, the valuation process will have appeals and arbitration built in, one assumes.

this is next level explanation of LVT.  You are totally correct, but most ppl can’t wrap their head around it.

under LVT, the government would be the servant of the people.  In our scheme, it’s the other way around

roadkill » 24 Nov 2022, 8:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 8:54 pm

Would it be subject to government smooth talk and adjustments to take us back to where we were in the first place?  Cause we all know the gov. wants a significant slice of the pie to keep their own interests intact.  

You did say " in theory it would replace all other taxes".  Should I assume "in theory" there would be no guarantee of that?

And is there the usual "the devil is in the details"?  

I just read this and it's a lot to digest because we both know often times things don't go as planned.

I just read the first page of this. I'm heading to bed soon so I can't effectively digest all of it especially cause it's new to me.

https://taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/g ... nd_tax.pdf

this is all I wanted, was for you to investigate the concept for 5 minutes.

if you still hate LVT and Geoism, you can **** all over it now and I won’t blame you, cuz at least you KNOW what it is your **** on lol.
 
And the devil is in the details.  And LVT has not always worked.  Hong Kong did great with it for 50 years, but in the last 10 years they made a mess of it IMO

SJConspirator » 24 Nov 2022, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 11:01 pm

this is next level explanation of LVT.  You are totally correct, but most ppl can’t wrap their head around it.

under LVT, the government would be the servant of the people.  In our scheme, it’s the other way around

However high the rate is set, land value will drop proportionately.

It's automatic - accomplished by Our Most Beloved Lady of The Invisible Hand of The Market.

It would be against the interests of even the LEAST responsible officials to set the rate beyond the point of diminishing returns. 
 
 

SJConspirator » 24 Nov 2022, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 11:01 pm

this is next level explanation of LVT.  You are totally correct, but most ppl can’t wrap their head around it.

under LVT, the government would be the servant of the people.  In our scheme, it’s the other way around

Chi-coms. Whadderya gonnadu...