Land value taxes obliterate the ability of landlords to extort your hard earned wagesThis is not a property tax. Property taxes tax the value of the building and disincentivize growth. Land value taxes only tax the land valueWhen real estate prices rise, is it because the buildings got magically better? No, it's because the land value increasedThat land value is the wealth generated by the productivity of the country and belongs to everyone, but landlords capture that value through extortionTake a landlord with a sharecropping farm. The landlord extorts the hard earned wealth that the tenants createIf the landlord was taxed at exactly the amount he could lease his land to the tenants, then he can no longer make any money from extortion. He cannot pass the tax onto his tenants, they'd leave due to being unable to afford to live on the landThat tax revenue can then be redistributed as UBI - this is the ultimate NEET system, landlords pay for you to play video games all daySharecropping never ended. Today, people either rent or own their housing. When you rent, you pay the land rent to your landlord. When you buy, you pay for the right to extort rent on the landYou're already paying the land value tax, it just goes to the landlord instead of societyIf land rents are taxed at 100%, people will no longer be enslaved by modern sharecroppingWhatever technological improvements mase will not fix poverty - the benefits will be extracted by landlordsWith AI, this turns into extreme poverty for everyone but the landlordsLVTs will establish the safety net that comes from owning land on a wider, more stable, more accessible basishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybghttps://landvaluetax.org/comment/blog/history/winston-churchill-said-it-all-better-then-we-can/With regard to compensating existing landowners:If a thief steals and sells an item, then the police return the item to the original owner, should the owner have to compensate the buyer?
>>515272717>If the landlord was taxed at exactly the amount he could lease his land to the tenants, then he can no longer make any money from extortion. He cannot pass the tax onto his tenants, they'd leave due to being unable to afford to live on the landfuckin kike
>>515273273How is taxing away land rents, one of the primary ways that people can steal the wealth of others, Jewish? If anything, it will economically genocide landlords, who are disproportionately Jewish.
>>515272717>>515273273>>515273808Property tax is the last thing keeping boomers from completely raping everyone else.Dont want to pay property tax cause your kids arent in school? FINE! How about I dont pay taxes towards medical services because I never use the fucking ambulance but boomers do all the fucking time when they get sick in their oversized home. Maybe they should pay for the ride instead since fair is fair.
>>515274876Replacing property tax with land value taxes would result in boomers paying far more in tax. All those gains in their housing 'investment' over the last 30 years would be taxed away because it comes from the land value, not the house value. The only value they'd own is the house itself, which is a depreciating asset.
>>515274876>implying anyone on this board willingly pays taxes
>>515272717What about taxing per toilet?
>>515272717>watch video>it says taxing the land will lower rentIs he lying or retarded?
>>515272717based and michael hudson-pilled
>>515275973It won't directly lower rents, but it will indirectly lower rents by increasing the housing supply.The housing supply is heavily constricted by NIMBYism and landlords making inefficient use of their land.Land value taxes ensure that landlords will make the most efficient use of their land (dense mixed-use housing), which will lower rents.Land value taxes also won't increase rent, because the tax cannot be passed onto renters as an additional cost - landlords are already charging the most that renters are capable of paying, and so they can't charge any more. If a landlord could charge more for rent, then they'd already be charging more.One way of thinking about this is as a tax on the unimproved value of land. If you tax the unimproved value of land, then you get less unimproved land.Another way of thinking about this is as a location value tax. You only tax the location value of the land, so that people can't hoard that location value rent (which is created by the community) for themselves.
>>515275068there is no such thing as 'replacing tax', only 'adding tax'
>>515276577Even if the government sets all the tax revenue on fire, land value taxes will still massively benefit society because they remove the incentive to hoard land for speculation. A landowner will have to put their land to a highly efficient and productive use that people are willing to pay for, or else it will be sold to someone who will.
>>515276490Why the fuck would someone build new apartments after doing so becomes less profitable?Or they are not doing it now, they will do it less when there is less profit motive.It’s a really myopic theory. For example, taxing lad LOWERS THE VALUE OF THE LAND. Whoops.Tax unused land if you want, that seems fine. One dude owns 5 houses for himself? Okay he pays an increased tax burden on 4 of them. Dude buys something and does nothing with it? Tax him to death. You could also tax apartments based on vacancy, incentivizing them to drop costs to reduce their tax burdenThis solves most of the egregious “problems” the theory presents without absolutely destroying society. It taxes the right people instead of literally everyone.If you tax an apartment complex for its land, they will charge more rent. It may not be a 1:1 increase, but the renter MUST pay the tax because the renter is the only revenue stream.If instead, you tax an apartment complex on vacancy, they must REDUCE rent to reduce their tax burden. This may not help people currently under lease, but it helps new leasees, which all of them will eventually become.The video is wrong that reducing rent means the land is less valuable because, by their own metric, the value of the land is not determined by the rent paid on it. The land is valueable in and of itself based on the surrounding environment (see their vacant building example, zero income, value rising).Also obligatory: ALL taxes are paid by the consumer, except income tax (aka literally slavery). There is no way around this.
>>515277771>>515276490Should say “RAISING rent means the land is MORE valuable” towards the end.
>>515272717Bump. The Mao pill also works if the George pill doesn't.
>>515277771>taxing lad LOWERS THE VALUE OF THE LANDOk. Ideally land would be taxed so high that unprofitable land is simply left vacant and available to homesteaders who think they can find a profitable use for it. Like you could literally just walk around and find land that's free to claim if you just pay the use tax, ideally with a personal exemption for owner+occupied homes
>>515277771>Why the fuck would someone build new apartments after doing so becomes less profitable?>Or they are not doing it now, they will do it less when there is less profit motive.There's a lot of land that could be used for new apartments, but instead it is captured by single family homes and landlords.>taxing lad LOWERS THE VALUE OF THE LANDIt lowers the price of land, not the value, but yes, this is exactly the primary point. Land rents, which are created by the community, can no longer be used by private landlords to extort the wealth of the community.Vacancy taxes only solve part of the issue. They also cause a distorted incentive to not build apartments because then you have to pay a vacancy tax per unit.>If you tax an apartment complex for its land, they will charge more rentThey cannot. If your landlord could charge you more, then they already would be.>ALL taxes are paid by the consumer, except income tax (aka literally slavery). There is no way around this.Land value taxes are one of the few taxes that cannot be passed onto the consumer, because the supply of land does not change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax>LVT is said to be justified for economic reasons because it does not deter production, distort markets, or otherwise create deadweight loss. Land value tax can even have negative deadweight loss (social benefits), particularly when land use improves.https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land>The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.
>>515278406Consider this:There's a bridge that people can freely cross to get from their houses to their jobs. A private landlord buys the bridge and starts charging a toll. The landlord will be able to charge a toll at the maximum that people are willing to pay to get to their jobs. It will soak up all the wealth that people create through their jobs, and only leave people with the most minimal subsistence. If the government comes and taxes away that toll, will be landlord be able to raise it more? No, because then it would no longer be worth it to cross the bridge for a job, people would no longer pay the toll.>>515278131Communism steals the fruits of labor from the people. Land value taxes return the fruits of labor back to the people.
there are other more pressing issues to shore up
>>515278400>taxes so high a business can not profit>but somehow a person just growing their own food will profit off of itYou are a fucking retard.>>515278406> There's a lot of land that could be used for new apartments, but instead it is captured by single family homes and landlords.An apartment owner is a landlord you dense fool. Your suggestion is to tax homeowners out of their own houses, bulldoze them, then build commie blocks for someone to profit off of. Do you even listen to yourself?> can no longer be used by private landlords to extort the wealth of the community.They absolutely can. The only alternative is no one has a place to live because all the apartments are bulldozed to build something profitable.> They also cause a distorted incentive to not build apartmentsSO DOES A LAND TAX. For fucks sake I just got through explaining this.> cannot be passed onto the consumerThey MUST be passed to the consumer, because the consumers are the only revenue source.Even the fucking income tax is paid by consumers. When you buy McDonald’s, that revenue is used to pay workers, who use that to pay income tax.There is literally no escaping it. I don’t understand how you can’t understand it. A business with no revenue can not pay taxes, it just busts. The revenue pays for ALL expenses of the business (if successful). Taxes are an expense.If you raise taxes on McDonald’s, the burgers cost more. If you raise wages, the burgers cost more. If you raise the price of beef, burgers cost more.ALL expenses are paid with revenue. When they aren’t (like say, a loan is sought to pay expenses), that means the business is losing money (expenses > revenue) and will fail unless it can change trajectory with that loan (revenue > expenses)> does not deter production, It makes production more expensive>distort markets,It changes expenses and therefore causes more revenue to be sought>create deadweight lossThis is just unjustifiably claiming it’s a zero sum game
>>515276490>Land value taxes ensure that landlords will make the most efficient use of their land (dense mixed-use housing), which will lower rents.I don't want to live in a hive and there's plenty of land so I shouldn't have to. banning non-citizens from owning land would do more to make housing affordable than your stupid scheme.
>>515279584>Your suggestion is to tax homeowners out of their own houses, bulldoze them, then build commie blocks for someone to profit off of.Yes, except it won't be commie blocks, and there will actually be room for more houses, since city centers will be replaced with high density housing.This won't replace everything with shitty commie blocks, unless that's all a group of people can afford to pay for. If people are willing to pay for amenities and nature around their homes, then they can get that, they just have to pay for it. The only people living in commie blocks would be people who just live off the dividend and don't work, because they wouldn't be able to afford any luxuries.>They MUST be passed to the consumer, because the consumers are the only revenue source.Maybe putting it this way will help you understand: you are already paying the land value rent, it just goes to the private landlord rather than the government, and then back to you through a dividend. If that land rent was taxed away at 100%, it won't increase the cost of production from a restaurant owner, because it doesn't increase the cost of producing the food itself. There's a reason why McDonald's is a real estate company first, the corporation extracts land rents from the franchise owners. If land rents were fully taxed away, then the cost that the franchise owners pay would stay the same, but McDonald's corporate would no longer be able to profit off of capturing land rents from franchise owners. >>515279633>banning non-citizens from owning landThis is only a half-measure. Land rents will still be captured by private landowners. Land will keep heading towards being owned by a smaller and smaller group of people.
>>515280292> YesStopped reading right there.Fuck off you stupid fucking commie, you just hate people owning things. These are literally people’s HOMES and you want them to be forced out by the state.I’m done talking, please follow me this way.
>>515272717>the gubmint should be able to confiscate your landfuck off
Your rent is now going up more parasite.
>>515280446This tax system will improve people's ability to live in their own homes by lowering the cost of housing. I want everybody to have a place to live.>>515280511Land value taxes with a dividend establish the same safety that comes from the owning land on a wider and more stable basis.
>>515280648youve gotten too far down the longpoint road their bmasonwe have to clean out all yer fictitious person fraud first
>>515280592That's the opposite of how it works. Landlords charge what the market can bear. If they are taxed more they cannot raise rents because the market won't bear it. Landlords eat the loss. Land or property taxes also lowers the prices of land or property; compare Texas which is funded by property taxes vs California which is funded by income taxes. Same house costs half as much in Texas, because the investors are chased out of the market, leaving homes as places to live not financial profiteering opportunities
>>515272717Meet half way.Land value taxes within established and NON-EXPANDABLE city limits.No taxes on rural land, but make the minimum parcel size 10 acres.Suburbs are the work of Satan.
>>515281610I'll accept that, as long as the rural landowners don't get the dividend, since they're not paying the tax. It would be a significant improvement over what we have now.You would end up with issues about rural land getting too expensive due to speculation, but it would be far better than what we have now.
>>515272717Both landlords and tenants should be taxed astronomically, to the point that both sides will rapidly go bankrupt, and no profit can ever be made. This will kill rent-seeking for good.
>>515281851>rural landowners don't get the dividendFair.>You would end up with issues about rural land getting too expensive due to speculationNo.Limit ownership of REAL estate to REAL persons.False persons having super-equal legal status is the main problem. Investment firms should not own rural property, as it is not an investment, but farm land.Perhaps let them in cities, but probably not.It goes back to usury.It is a sin because it is institutionalized theft. It is designed to rob the poor and give to the rich.The dollar is based solely on usury.EVERY corporation is based on usury.Destroy the root of the evil and the branches will wither.
