Sup Veeky Forumssyfits, can we talk about Georgism, aka, the Land Value Tax...

So there are no landlords in your country?

Danemark? Chances are it's set at a very low level and is used in conjunction with regular income taxation, the LVT is a proposed replacement of income tax that directly taxes the added value that society has contributed to the value of a business, in other words it doesn't tax the improvements someone has made to their property, only the value of the vacant plot of land, where it to be on the market. Under this system, people who just rent a flat or something would be paying very little in taxes, while the supermarket that gobbles up public resources will be paying their proper share of the local taxation that will be used to provide the things like bus routes and schools that a supermarket relies on, but does not currently pay towards.

How would the LTV eliminate landlordism? It eliminates people who sit on unimproved land (and will lead to disastrous effects on the environment and soil), that's all. If you want to eliminate rents, just tax rents 100% you morons.

Australia. We call them land rates and they come once a year. Landlords pay the rates which are substantially larger and incidentally why our millennials rent rather than mortgage houses.

Pros: -Highly efficient tax. Most taxes disincentivize positive behavior (income tax, work; corporate tax, doing business; etc). The LVT actually incentivized using land more efficiently. It punishes hoarding large amounts of unused land, which is a good thing, because the supply of land is inherently limited.

-It's fair. No one has a "right" to the land itself. It's not something you can produce. The value of land is determined generally by the actions of the government (i.e. building roads) and other private citizens (starting businesses). An individual does little to affect the value of their land, so they really shouldn't be profiting from it.

-It's progressive, unlike other "efficient" taxes, like the consumption tax, which is highly regressive.

Cons: - The government would have to essentially buy everyones land, which would take a *massive* amount of deficit spending. Like, unprecedented. It would pay off eventually due to the additional tax revenue.

Another con: -It is too complicated to explain for it to really be politically viable. The masses would likely think of it as socialistic, and feel that the government is going to take their house value as well.

>How would the LTV eliminate landlordism?

Because housing itself adds no real value to a plot of land, the landlord's income is based entirely around literal rent-seeking parasitism and is paid more or less directly by the public in the form of the services and amenities the landlord does nothing to contribute towards.

I have no idea what's going on this thread but I'm tripping out man

>the landlord's income is based entirely around literal rent-seeking parasitism and is paid more or less directly by the public in the form of the services and amenities the landlord does nothing to contribute towards
... So how does the LTV help again?
Like, what happens to rent prices in Las Vegas when the LTV is instituted? It's a fucking desert.

>LTV
LVT, jesus, I can never spell it right.

This is a definite con, it makes perfect sense when you get it but it's a weird and arcane idea when you first meet it.

> The government would have to essentially buy everyones land, which would take a *massive* amount of deficit spending.

True but the government isn't going to renege on debts it owes to itself so it's really more an accountancy trick than "real" spending.

>debts it owes to itself
I'm not sure what you meant by this but the government giving IOUs to every land-owner in exchange for confiscating their land isn't gonna fly.

The government is the people, if it hands out bonds in exchange for the very land it occupies, those bonds are as good as gold.

Legally it's a problem, agreed, but in theory the government has eminent domain over the landowners.

>>-It's fair. No one has a "right" to the land itself. It's not something you can produce. The value of land is determined generally by the actions of the government (i.e. building roads) and other private citizens (starting businesses). An individual does little to affect the value of their land, so they really shouldn't be profiting from it.

so the amount of tax I pay as landowner is fixed by other people and not by me, which means that if retards come around me and may even evaluate the lands around me, including mine, at 1 million dollars, I am literally fucked by a retard like you who fantasizes of imposing his will on me which his pathetically ''''''''''justifies''''''''''' from his delirium of '''''''''''''''greater good''''''''''''''''''. Nice extortion mate.

No, the LVT uses actual sales of land as it's metric, not valuations. It also doesn't tax your property or any other improvements to the land you have made, /only/ it's inherent value as a product of the infrastructure surrounding it. This is why it is so fair and so unavoidable, it directly taxes the "added value" a plot of land gets from public utilities so it punishes people who just buy up a bunch of empty lots and sit on them, or who convert housing into flats and just scrape the added value off in the form of rent, but rewards people who buy up vacant lots and start productive enterprises on them, since they will be able to keep all the value THEY added for themselves and only pay in taxes the value they DIDN'T add themselves.

Are you genuinely autistic?

I'm not saying it would be easy or even possible to impose radical Georgism on anyone, that's the kind of endeavour that leads to civil wars. But the state already excersices the right to tax you and the property you own, an LVT is nothing different.

I'm telling you that you can't confiscate all land without reparation or by handing out IOUs that can never be cashed and just handwave it as "the state owing a debt to iself", that's just delusional. People will either revolt or be ruined.

Well obviously you don't try to sell the idea that way do you, idiot? In principle LVT is just another tax, you can already lose property you own if you refuse to pay taxes, evicting you from your land (but letting you take the full value of your property that was on that land) for not paying your taxes is nothing especially new.

Not land value tax but a small tax on capital is essential if you want to slow down capital's self-accumulation and maintain a semblance of meritocracy in your society.

What part of "you can't just confiscate all land in the country without reparation" don't you fucking understand? Stop making comparisons to scenarios that are not even remotely similar.

>What part of "you can't just confiscate all land in the country without reparation" don't you fucking understand?
Not him but this has happened regularly so I don't know why you would think it's impossible?

You're literally the only person talking about confiscating anything. A one-off payment in the form of treasury bonds to institute a new system of taxation is not in any way a confiscation, rather it is the acknowledgement by the state that it does not have the right to directly tax your property, only the services you make use of.

When exactly? I've heard of land reform with and without reparation, with immediate catastrophic consequences in the latter case and massacres needed to enforce the reform, but even then it wasn't ALL land, it was just large agricultural landowners who were cut down to size.

>A one-off payment in the form of treasury bonds
So an IOU that can't possibly be cashed given the scale of the wealth transfer you're proposing.
>is not in any way a confiscation
It's definitely a confiscation, unless they can refuse it.

Property is not tangible but a creature of the state. The state can take away property at will because property belongs to the state to begin with. You just need consensus.

The president/dictator could theoretically declare that all the women in the country are now his wives but that doesn't mean he CAN do that without horrible consequences, that's the point.
>You just need consensus
Yeah, good luck.

>It's definitely a confiscation, unless they can refuse it.

No, you would continue to own your own property and continue to have exclusive right to the land you occupy, the only change would be that in future you would pay an LVT instead of an income tax.

Not in America, or most countries with a constitution.

and if I do not pay your tax?

How is this different than not paying your taxes now?You think the state won't confiscate your property to pay the tax, even if you refuse to comply, and ultimately throw you in jail AND confiscate your property if you still won't comply?

You fail to see that I can add value to my land by putting here a house do Vegetable Gardening for myself.

No, you fail to understand that that is the whole point.If you add value to your land, your LVT does NOT increase, you still pay just the cost of the "empty plot". This is quite different from the current system which taxes you extra when you produce more.

is this like the french ?
The basis on which the tax determined is similar to that of the tax d’habitation, although in a more straightforward manner.

Broadly speaking, the basis of the assessment is the notional rent that the property might be expected to achieve in the open market, having regard to the size condition and location of the property.

This assessment is then discounted by 50% to take account of running costs, eg repairs, insurance.

This notional rent may not bear any relation to any actual rent that may be being paid on the property as the notional rental values date from 1970.

The valeur locative brute of the property should be stated on the rear of the tax demand, and if you wish to query it you will need to visit your local Centre des Impôts Fonciers (Service de Cadastre), whose contact details are also given on the tax notice.

A percentage rate is then applied to this notional rent based on the income the authorities need to raise, called the taux d'imposition.

The rate of tax varies marginally according to whether the property is the main home or a second home. In the case of the latter the rate for management costs is higher (3% rather than 1%).

Homes with a high rateable value also have an additional rate applied against them, called prélèvements pour base élevée et sur les maison secondaires.

For a second home the percentage rate is 1.2% for properties with a rateable value between €4,573 and €7,622 and 1.7% if they exceed this figure. For main homes the rate is 0.2% if the rateable value exceeds €4,573.

>and if I do not pay your tax?

Depends on how much you refuse to pay.

less than 10 million: You're a traitor

more than 10 million: You're a successfull businessman who deserves respect. And if we ever try to make you pay up, we're evil Russian communists.

People here have banned lolis and burkinis, with horrible consequences

No, a LVT does not tax you for property, only for the land itself. Systems like the one you describe are terrible because they encourage rent-seeking behaviour and slums.

Wouldn't this just cause landlords to raise renting prices to meet their new tax expenses?

bump