Random Politics Thread

[Coriolis]

A land value tax would essentially be a progressive tax, but ideally it would totally replace most other taxes, notably income taxes and property taxes

One if the biggest advantages... I can see this leading to a reduction in overdevelopment of land such as forests and wildlife refuges, as such a system would encourage land owners to sell undeveloped land in their possession rather than to hold onto land that ultimately goes unused with the current tax system (due to landowners not wanting to improve or develop said land out of fear of higher property taxes). There would be more incentive to develop land such as unused/abandoned lots in cities. Imagine the social and economic benefits in a city like Detroit. Improvements to land in places such as poor urban centers would be far less likely to lead to gentrification and current residents being priced out of their own cities.

Of course, good luck getting the congressional duopoly to get on board with this. We would be wise to support something like this over current ideas for ecotaxation, as it might encourage and aid conservation efforts without stifling economic development

How is a land tax progressive, if it is based on how much land you own vs. how much money you have available to pay it, i.e. income? It sounds like farmers who are barely making ends meet would have very high taxes under such a system, since they own large amounts of land. That seems unfair and counterproductive.

 

[Kephalos]

A land value tax only works if there are no other capital assets people can invest in.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

How is a land tax progressive, if it is based on how much land you own vs. how much money you have available to pay it, i.e. income? It sounds like farmers who are barely making ends meet would have very high taxes under such a system, since they own large amounts of land. That seems unfair and counterproductive.

It's not a land tax, it's a land value tax.

sounds like you're confusing it with property taxes.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

A land value tax only works if there are no other capital assets people can invest in.

that's sort of the idea, so it goes without saying.

 

[Coriolis]

It's not a land tax, it's a land value tax.

sounds like you're confusing it with property taxes.

What is the difference? If you own land that has alot of value, e.g. a farmer, but have very modest income, don't you end up with a high tax bill that is difficult to pay?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What is the difference? If you own land that has alot of value, e.g. a farmer, but have very modest income, don't you end up with a high tax bill that is difficult to pay?

The way property tax rates are determined is different from the way in which LVT rates are determined.


With a LVT, factors such as the farmer’s overall profits and income might come into play in determining the value of their land.

there might also be a much greater incentive for that farmer to sell their land if the value is high but they are not making enough money to get by.

another thing to consider is that with a LVT system, that farmer is only going to be paying that one land value tax as opposed to all of the various taxes they’re faced with in the current system—no property tax, no income tax, none of the commercial taxes farmers likely must pay but of which I’m too ignorant to list here. Even if you’re right and it’s a terrible idea, if I were that farmer, I’d still take it over what we have now.

one of the reasons land is currently so expensive to own is because of the current system. Landowners are encouraged to sit on unused, undeveloped or unimproved land instead of selling it or improving it in a way beneficial to the greater good (land values in a LVT system would be determined in part based in the benefit to society). Speculation and land hoarding is a vicious cycle that helps to feed economic inflation and makes it harder for poor people living in areas undergoing improvement and economic growth

I would honestly have expected you to be more open to something like this, which is why I guessed you might have confused it with something else

 

[Kephalos]

Farmers? Most land is owned and operated by agricultural businesses. Land is hardly distinguishable from any other capital asset: a LVT alone shifts funds invested in land or land-intensive activities and moves it to other assets and consumption.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Farmers? Most land is owned and operated by agricultural businesses. Land is hardly distinguishable from any other capital asset: a LVT alone shifts funds invested in land or land-intensive activities and moves it to other assets and consumption.

And those companies will be perfectly able to pay their yearly land value taxes.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I wouldn’t be opposed to adding severance taxes in a system with a LVT

 

[Coriolis]

The way property tax rates are determined is different from the way in which LVT rates are determined.


With a LVT, factors such as the farmer’s overall profits and income might come into play in determining the value of their land.

there might also be a much greater incentive for that farmer to sell their land if the value is high but they are not making enough money to get by.

another thing to consider is that with a LVT system, that farmer is only going to be paying that one land value tax as opposed to all of the various taxes they’re faced with in the current system—no property tax, no income tax, none of the commercial taxes farmers likely must pay but of which I’m too ignorant to list here. Even if you’re right and it’s a terrible idea, if I were that farmer, I’d still take it over what we have now.

one of the reasons land is currently so expensive to own is because of the current system. Landowners are encouraged to sit on unused, undeveloped or unimproved land instead of selling it or improving it in a way beneficial to the greater good (land values in a LVT system would be determined in part based in the benefit to society). Speculation and land hoarding is a vicious cycle that helps to feed economic inflation and makes it harder for poor people living in areas undergoing improvement and economic growth

I would honestly have expected you to be more open to something like this, which is why I guessed you might have confused it with something else

As I said, I am opposed to any tax that is not based on someone's ability to pay. I am suspicious of what would count as "used, developed, or improved". Who decides what sorts of improvements contribute to the greater good? Hereabouts, that usually amounts to taking green space and turning it into yet another shopping area that no one needs. I would prefer land remain "undeveloped" over that. The last thing we need is to be pushing our few remaining small farmers out of business. Usually their methods are more sustainable and environmentally friendly than those of big agri-business, who as you say can pay it and have no incentive to improve how they do business.

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, my preferred taxation scheme is to eliminate everything except income tax on the state level. The federal government then taxes the states, with the amount due based on relative wealth and income within the state, to include accounting for extenuating circumstances like Hurricane Katrina, etc.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

As I said, I am opposed to any tax that is not based on someone's ability to pay. I am suspicious of what would count as "used, developed, or improved". Who decides what sorts of improvements contribute to the greater good? Hereabouts, that usually amounts to taking green space and turning it into yet another shopping area that no one needs. I would prefer land remain "undeveloped" over that. The last thing we need is to be pushing our few remaining small farmers out of business. Usually their methods are more sustainable and environmentally friendly than those of big agri-business, who as you say can pay it and have no incentive to improve how they do business.

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, my preferred taxation scheme is to eliminate everything except income tax on the state level. The federal government then taxes the states, with the amount due based on relative wealth and income within the state, to include accounting for extenuating circumstances like Hurricane Katrina, etc.

I mean who decides what contributes to the greater good in current system? Obviously you'd need rules and criteria before shifting to an LVT based system, this goes without saying. However, I think the major source of disagreement here is coming from a different idea of land and private property.

land value tax is essentially a geolibertarian idea. Geolibertarianism advocates public ownership of all land as common property. People can own the fruits of their own labor, but land doesn't fall under that umbrella since technically people aren't producing land, but merely modifying or inhabiting land. Severance taxes are another popular geolibertarian idea (a form of an ecotax). With added severance taxes, all "landowners" would be incentivized to conserve rather than use up and deplete land of natural beauty and resources.

It might help to think not of landowners as actual landowners in the system I'm discussing, since land is not defined as private property in said system. Think of "landowners" in such a system as temporary holders or stewards of land parcels. The land value tax on their holdings, think of as their rent owed for use and development of said land. Penalties would be incurred for poisoning said land or making it less beneficial to the greater good

Actually these ideas aren't far off from what first nations such as the Iroquois practiced prior to European invasion of the Americas. They approached land ownership from what could be termed a proto-geolibertarian perspective.


The only tax that needs to be levied on states or private citizens by the federal government is a tax for usage of public (all) land. That would more than pay for all current national social and defense programs if properly managed.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

@Cor Luctis

here is a better explanation of why the hypothetical farmer is better off paying land value taxes over property and income taxes. It also explains why the big farming company might have more incentive to treat their land better than they would in the current system

I understand your concerns about too many wildlands being developed, but LVT will encourage people to use land that is already being squandered, i.e. parking lots, abandoned strip malls, etc. before moving on to build on other land. Imagine how we could revitalize places like Detroit.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[ceecee]

Too bad Mole isn't around to verify....

Rightwing US pundit Candace Owens compares Australian government to the Taliban, calling it a ‘tyrannical police state’

The high-profile conservative commentator quips: ‘When do we deploy troops to Australia?’

www.theguardian.com

“When do we deploy troops to Australia? When do we invade Australia and free an oppressed people who are suffering under a totalitarian regime? When do we spend trillions of dollars to spread democracy in Australia?” she asked.

 

[Kephalos]

Joe Manchin III, hostis humani generis.

Joe Manchin's objections to a clean energy program threaten Biden's climate promises

The key climate element of President Biden's $3.5 trillion budget proposal appears to be in jeopardy, threatening environmental goals and global credibility.

www.npr.org

 

[Red Herring]

Too bad Mole isn't around to verify....

Rightwing US pundit Candace Owens compares Australian government to the Taliban, calling it a ‘tyrannical police state’

The high-profile conservative commentator quips: ‘When do we deploy troops to Australia?’

www.theguardian.com

You guys might want to do a world tour again and start with a reunion concert under the Brandenburg gate in Berlin. We are living under a "Merkel-Diktatur" here according to our local far-right.

 

[Kephalos]

Be careful about calls to "depoliticize" or to "take the politics" out of something, be it a place or an activity or an institution:

What happens when conservative school boards gain power at districts around the country

They ran against critical race theory. But once they got on the school board, these conservatives started rolling back efforts to include students.

www.yahoo.com

Gamers are still convinced that there are only:
Two races: white and "political"
Two genders: Male and "political"
Two hair styles for women: long and "political"
Two sexualities: straight and "political"
Two body types: normative and "political"

 

[Coriolis]

@Cor Luctis

here is a better explanation of why the hypothetical farmer is better off paying land value taxes over property and income taxes. It also explains why the big farming company might have more incentive to treat their land better than they would in the current system

I understand your concerns about too many wildlands being developed, but LVT will encourage people to use land that is already being squandered, i.e. parking lots, abandoned strip malls, etc. before moving on to build on other land. Imagine how we could revitalize places like Detroit.

I finally had time to watch this video. I still disagree. I don't see how this would prod big agribusiness to operate in a more sustainable manner, especially as it pushes their few remaining small competitors out of business. The speaker says that the land tax would punish people whose land stays idle. This is not what we need. As I said already, too much green space is being destroyed for developments that no one really needs. The only way a land tax would avoid this is if "protected green space" is considered a use equal in value to commercial or residential development. He says something about infrastructure being extended to this undeveloped land, essentially becoming an investment with no return. But who decided to extend utilies to that land? The owners? How about not extend the infrastructure until there is a commitment to develop?

Finally, the speaker contrasts land and property tax, as if those are the only taxes possible. Yes, I understand that that specific comparison was his point. Nothing he says, though, shows how either tax is superior to income tax, the only tax based directly on someone's ability to pay.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I finally had time to watch this video. I still disagree. I don't see how this would prod big agribusiness to operate in a more sustainable manner, especially as it pushes their few remaining small competitors out of business. The speaker says that the land tax would punish people whose land stays idle. This is not what we need. As I said already, too much green space is being destroyed for developments that no one really needs. The only way a land tax would avoid this is if "protected green space" is considered a use equal in value to commercial or residential development. He says something about infrastructure being extended to this undeveloped land, essentially becoming an investment with no return. But who decided to extend utilies to that land? The owners? How about not extend the infrastructure until there is a commitment to develop?

Finally, the speaker contrasts land and property tax, as if those are the only taxes possible. Yes, I understand that that specific comparison was his point. Nothing he says, though, shows how either tax is superior to income tax, the only tax based directly on someone's ability to pay.

I don't think you are considering how much of an incentive there would be to use existing, already developed land. Again, think of empty parking lots, abandoned housing units, etc--all of which owners are disincentivized to improve or use in current system. There's also a good argument to be made that even when green space is bought andowned, there will be more incentive for more of those lands' holders to manage the land in an environmentally responsible manner than there would be in the current system. The very concerns you raise will not be addressed or remedied any faster in current system.

In said video, they're comparing and contrasting those particular taxation systems because that's the point. Income tax didn't come up because that wasn't the focus. The point there was that he was distinguishing LVT from property tax because many people confuse the two or assume they are the same thing. Few people are confusing Income taxes with LVT.

Income taxes are an unfair burden on the lower classes, by the way. The rich will continue to get out of them with loopholes, or find ways to continue to launder their money in shelters. Proponents of the LVT argue that the landed rich will have more difficulty avoiding paying LVT.

Income taxes are so archaic, unimaginative, and crippling to the very people they are supposed to most benefit. It's also telling that the most wealthy and politically influential tend to be totally fine with continuing the current system where the poorest classes always seem to end up paying a higher percentage of the fruits of their labor than the wealthiest classes.

But OK, let's continue with that broken neolib shit and not dare to think outside of the box. Bandaids on gunshot wounds.

 

[ceecee]

MAGA, the CIA, and Silvercorp: The Bizarre Backstory of the World’s Most Disastrous Coup

Last year, an invasion of Venezuela led by U.S. mercenaries played out as farce and ended in disaster. New interviews reveal the backstory was even more bizarre than previously thought.

www.vice.com