The Georgists

[Lex]

* Does property become non-property just because you don't defend it 24/7? (do you really need to sit on your porch with a shotgun to defend your ownership of some land?)

If not you specifically, then someone you hire has to defend it. In our case today, the United State military does this job.

* What gave you the right to claim that particular piece of land you claim to own? (I mean how did the original owner of a piece get it. You probably bought it legitimately from a previous owner. How do you justify the first owner's claim?)

Your ability to protect the land from others gave you the claim to own the land.

What do you think about Immigration? We should allow everyone access to this country since they are just as entitled to this land as we are.

I don't believe that something becomes non-property just because you don't actively defend it.

Then why do we have a military?

I also don't believe that if something is genuinely non-property, that the first person to come along and make a claim has any legitimacy. (How do you prove that you were the first? How do you prove that no one else made a prior claim (prove a negative)?)

Agreed, being there first does not entitle you to the property. Being the first to live on it and protect it, does.

I know some pure anarchists would argue against this, but from a minarchist point of view, one of the major purposes of government is to allow you to NOT spend all your time defending your property.

Right, just like the folks in New London are not defending their property.

And DO NOT say that YOUR government will be better and not steal peoples land. You know full well that no government will ever work the way you want it. Even a dictator cannot control every piece of government especially a country the size of the US.

If my neighborhood pooled the money we pay in taxes yearly and hired a private firm to protect the neighborhood we would be MUCH better off.

[Lex]

Also, see my earlier response to the same post: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1965.msg29042#msg29042

[Lex]

The income tax is just a tax on the sale of your labor, so any arguments against a sales tax apply to the income tax as well.

The sales tax is immoral (a third party forcing itself into trades between willing partners, demanding a cut of the action, with no reason given except "I want"). It harms commerce. The fact that it is avoidable (i.e. "black market") means that a large enforcement agency is required, which leads to more possibilities for corruption.

So, I believe firmly that the sales and income taxes are most definitely unfair.

Agreed.

I don't think the government should be interfering in the market. If competition is allowed, as it should be, then private businesses should be more efficient, providing better goods and services at lower cost. The government run businesses don't stand a chance on a level playing field. That limits their usefulness as revenue generators.

Agreed.

The land tax, on the other hand, is not an avoidable tax (not a big seller in this crowd, I know  )

No taxes, period.

The tax collectors only need to know who the land owners are. Renters can remain anonymous.
Of course I think that the property tax should be capped at a maximum total of 5% of the value of the land. If that isn't enough to pay for the legitimate functions of government, then we might want to look elsewhere, but not before then.

Wow! Would you really put that in the legislature?

With ideas like that how in the world do you plan to reduce government or create more freedom?!?

The land I'm working on purchasing I'll be paying around $130,000 for. 5% of that is 6500. I'd rather pay less than that, but if that was my total taxes for the year (fed, state, and local), I'd be ecstatic!

I'm only willing to pay ZERO taxes as many others here. Anything more will provoke a bunch of angry people with guns to show up at your door.

[Lex]

As do I (support land ownership). Just with a twist.

Twist - An entire government system to determine taxes, collect taxes, distribute rent and punish tax evaders.

[Lex]

In any event, all this is based on the assumption that government is needed. I don't necessarily buy that, but if you accept that assumption as a premise then the land tax seems to be the best and most moral way to pay for it. If not the land tax, then what?

WOAH! That's quite a thing to say! How do you plan to run this taxation machine of yours with government?

[Lex]

Given the assumption that the tree is indeed wild, I see no problem with making a claim on the fallen apple. I do see a difference with making a claim on the land on which the tree is growing.

What is land? How is the tree different from the land?

Edit: Sorry, that's a philosophical question, you don't have to answer unless you want to.

[Lex]

Taking the fallen apple does not damage the land or change its value. That's the difference.

The natural cycle is broken. That apple would have decomposed and turned into fertilizer or another apple tree could have grown out of it and added to the value of the land.

Cutting down an entire forest is just a more exaggerated version of tacking an apple. Unless your proposed government not only collects taxes but also regulates how many apples can be collected from a wild tree.

And does cutting down an entire forest not damage the value of the land? Especially when cutting the forest down paves the way for erosion.

And remember, this is all based on the premise that government is needed; and therefore must be paid for. (Not that I necessarily accept that premise. Just saying that if you do...)

If you accept that premise, then the land value tax capped at 5% is at least defensible - unlike the sales, income, and property taxes or a land tax of over 5%.

You need government to administer the collection of taxes via their goon squad.

[Lex]

Georgists...aren't they the ones that voted for GW?

[Lex]

I think the beauty of geo-libertarianism is that it gives socialists like Henry George what they seem to want, without initiating force; and it gives libertarians what they want, without inhibiting their freedom.

Nowhere have you explained how you plan to get people to pay taxes without forcing them.

[Lex]

rhelwigh, if you decide not to answer any of my questions (in which i put effort writing so I hope you will answer them) then hopefuly you can try to answer at least this question:

If I want to be self-sufficient and I have a large plot of land (to grow all my food and to let my cows and horses to graze) to live off of, thus I do not have an outside income. How would I pay the tax if I have no income? Would you take my food and/or put me in prison for being such an evil man?

[Lex]

I certainly hope that isn't the plan.  If so, you better make a law stating it.  If not, back away and move on to other more important things.  I ain't paying income tax.  Period!

You mean property tax... right?

[Lex]

how much, I'm not sure...

I can help with that: $0. 

[Ron Helwig]

Now if someone actually wants to debate (and not just say "you're wrong" without any backing) then I'm up for it. But seriously, there's a LOT more important stuff to be working on.

I will not tell you you are wrong without any backing.

I have been thinking a lot about this and arguing on other forums and I have the following points to make:

Lets ignore philosophy for a minute because often times it comes down to simply who believes in which religion.

Lets look at it from a practical stand point.

Georgists believe that every person is "entitled" to some land and that if you are living in an apartment you should be compensated for allowing someone else to use "your" land, then you can use that money to pay for your rent at the apartment you are living in. This provides a fair system whereby someone who wants lots of land can get the land if he is willing to compensate those who "gave up their right" to that land, and those who gave up their "right to land" can use the money to pay for rent wherever they are living.

Basically there are two systems:

1. Landowners pay a tax on land to those who do not own land.
2. Renters pay a "tax" to live in an apartment building.

Obviously we have to decide between the two systems. To do that we should look at which system would create the most amount of waste and force.

To implement the Georgist idea (#1) a government is required, to determine the cost of taxes, to collect the taxes, to enforce the collection of taxes, distribution of taxes back to the 'renters' and to punish those who refuse to pay the taxes. There are many variables that play in this bureaucracy: what is the basis for determining taxes? how often will the taxes be collected? how will the taxes be collected? who will enforce/perform the collection of taxes? what are the punishments for not paying taxes? if someone does not pay their taxes and you take their land, where do you put the property that is on this land? does this person go to jail? when in jail will this person get paid for rent (since his cell is probably much smaller then the 'average' land lot per person, which means someone else is using his land)? how do you determine what size of land each person should have? do you adjust the size of land people have based on the population? as more people are born do taxes go up to pay all those new people? how much of the taxes collected is kept by the government to pay for the bureaucracy, how is this determined? what market forces affect the government to be fair? what kind of government is it, democracy/republic/dictatorship? will there be waste and corruption in this government as there is in the government today? how will you deal with this waste and corruption?

In a Libertarian society nobody has a "right" to land. When you are born you live with your parents or guardian or in a foster home. You labor to earn capital, then you use this capital to buy however much land you can afford. While you earn the capital if you choose to venture out on your own you can live on someone else property for a fee. Eventually if you do not like living on someone else property you can purchase your own property.

What do you think? Do you have answers to every single questions I asked about the Georgist implementation?

First, glad to have some good discussion here. My remark about not having backing of debate positions is not directed towards anyone in particular.

I don't necessarily believe that every person is "entitled" to "some" land. What I'd say is that everyone has equal right to use of land (in the general sense). No one has a natural right to deny others the exercise of their right, so we create a "civil right" to own land that is administered by the "civil authorities" AKA government. Those who own land, thus denying others their natural right, should pay for it.

Some Georgists believe that the payments should be distributed equally to everyone. It might be a nice idea, but is unworkable. It requires everyone to be known by the distributor (government) and a pretty large bureaucracy to do the distributing. I say that the payments should be used to pay for all the functions of government. This way everyone is compensated virtually.

What this leads to is that everyone who makes use of land ends up paying their fair share: landowners pay directly via the land tax, and renters pay indirectly through their rent. Incidentally, this is the only tax I know of that has an inherent moral limitation (5%). All other taxes only have practical limits (as much as the people are willing to bear).

That 5% limit is based on the premise that each generation is owed for the use of the land. Taking a generation as 20 years, a landowner should rightfully pay 5% (and NO MORE) of the unimproved value of the land each year.

Yes, to implement this system a government is required. In an anarchy, this is probably unworkable; but then I don't see how land ownership in an anarchy is based on anything other than raw force. (I'd be glad to hear any reasoned alternatives!)

You have a lot of questions in the "To implement" paragraph. A lot of them have the same answers as in today's property tax regime, either the same way as we do now, or the market will provide. Examples: "Who will enforce the collection of taxes?" - the Sherrif. "How do you determine what size of land..." - I don't, the free market does. IIRC, it's Coase's theorem that says that once a free market is established, the ownership will sort itself out.

When people are born, the unimproved value of the land doesn't change, does it? If not, then population won't affect the tax.

"what market forces affect the government to be fair?"   When has the government ever been fair? 
I'd say that there really aren't any market forces that can make the government fair, thus "eternal vigilance". However, it is much easier to be vigilant when there is only one tax than when there are a multitude.

What kind of government isn't really relevant to the discussion, but with the amount of revenue generated being limited, it would need to be leaner and closer to the people than what we have now.

I know I didn't answer every one of your questions (yet), but if I'm going to get anything done today I've got to get moving. I'll get back to it later.

BTW, this is helping me understand and clarify not only my position, but also to understand other people's positions. (But I'd still rather be working - I actually love my job)

[ladyattis]

Sounds like bunkery to me. Then again I see no right to use of any land. You may need a space aka volume to exist, but land may not be needed to occupy that volume.

-- Bridget

[Lex]

I don't necessarily believe that every person is "entitled" to "some" land. What I'd say is that everyone has equal right to use of land (in the general sense). No one has a natural right to deny others the exercise of their right, so we create a "civil right" to own land that is administered by the "civil authorities" AKA government. Those who own land, thus denying others their natural right, should pay for it.

How is this "equal right" a right if the people who are denyed are not compensated in anyway?

It's like if people had a right to not be murdered and someone went around killing people and as long as the killer simply paid a "death" tax to the government he would be allowed to practice his hobby.

If you are going to bother with any "equal right" you have to actually setup some kind of system where the right is attempted to be made equal. Otherwise you are just using the violation of peoples rights to make a profit for the government. Is that the kind of government you want?

Some Georgists believe that the payments should be distributed equally to everyone. It might be a nice idea, but is unworkable. It requires everyone to be known by the distributor (government) and a pretty large bureaucracy to do the distributing. I say that the payments should be used to pay for all the functions of government. This way everyone is compensated virtually.

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. I do not believed in a monopoly government. Lets have competing voluntary governments that have contracts and "membership dues". If you don't like what your current government is doing, just send them a letter of resignation and join another government, no need to relocate either. These governments would have agreements between each other on what to do when there are conflicts. That's one way to do it at least.

What this leads to is that everyone who makes use of land ends up paying their fair share: landowners pay directly via the land tax, and renters pay indirectly through their rent. Incidentally, this is the only tax I know of that has an inherent moral limitation (5%). All other taxes only have practical limits (as much as the people are willing to bear).

That 5% limit is based on the premise that each generation is owed for the use of the land. Taking a generation as 20 years, a landowner should rightfully pay 5% (and NO MORE) of the unimproved value of the land each year.

Why is this "inherent moral limitation" 5%? How did you derive this percentage? Why not 4% of 6%?

Yes, to implement this system a government is required. In an anarchy, this is probably unworkable; but then I don't see how land ownership in an anarchy is based on anything other than raw force. (I'd be glad to hear any reasoned alternatives!)

Please explain to me how private property is not backed by raw force today. In fact, when has private property ever existed without somekind of "raw force" backing up its claim?

You have a lot of questions in the "To implement" paragraph. A lot of them have the same answers as in today's property tax regime, either the same way as we do now, or the market will provide. Examples: "Who will enforce the collection of taxes?" - the Sherrif. "How do you determine what size of land..." - I don't, the free market does. IIRC, it's Coase's theorem that says that once a free market is established, the ownership will sort itself out.

My point was that you needed a government to run your system. But it seems like you are in favor of having a government anyways - with all of it's inherent corruption, waste and destruction of freedoms among other things.

When people are born, the unimproved value of the land doesn't change, does it? If not, then population won't affect the tax.

That depends on how the price was set:

Arbitrarily - Is it set arbitrarily at the whim of some bureaucrats? Will the values be reset each time a new bureaucrat with new ideas of value comes into power? Or everytime the valuation manual is rewritten or updated? Basically we are opening up the values of our homes to the chaotic forces of government (although if history is any indication I'd say it's chaotic only by how much the values sky rocket as the government gets more and more greedy)

Market - Is it set by the market? If it is set by the market than it has to be driven by demand. The more people that are born the more demand there is. Thus the value will most likely go up proportionately to the increase in population.

Eitherway your taxes will continue to go up ad finitum just as they do today.

"what market forces affect the government to be fair?"   When has the government ever been fair? 
I'd say that there really aren't any market forces that can make the government fair, thus "eternal vigilance". However, it is much easier to be vigilant when there is only one tax than when there are a multitude.

Eternal vigilance. Yeah, that's a solution. Why has our government gotten out of proportion today? Do we not have enough "eternally vigilant" people? How many people do you need to be eternally vigilant to keep government in check? What do these people need to do?

More importantly, how will this new eternal vigilance be more effective than the one today? Or do you plan to live in NH until you get the government out of proportion there as well and just move somewhere else again?

What kind of government isn't really relevant to the discussion, but with the amount of revenue generated being limited, it would need to be leaner and closer to the people than what we have now.

Uh, if your system requires government and you want to convince people to your side then describing the kind of government you invision is CRITICAL to the discussion. That is what most people here will use to decide whether they like your idea or not. If you say that a dictatoriship is required to run the goon squad that will go around collecting taxes then I think you will get some interesting looks from this liberty crowed. But I'm sure you realize that.

We do not need government. In fact, we need no government.