Skip to main content

View Diary: Progressive Tax Reform: The Land Value Tax [w/poll] (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Regarding Farmers (0+ / 0-)

    http://findarticles.com/...

    Atkinson went on to claim that neither land area nor land value bears any proportional relationship to the final product. Then, through his illustrations, he proceeded to ignore land value, and concentrated only on land area. Since farmers occupy a larger proportional land area, he concluded: "If land only is taxed, the farmer must pay the larger part of the tax and recover it from consumers in the best way he can devise. If he cannot recover it, he must stop work." (12)

    George himself answered this point quite well in his reply to Atkinson in the same publication by pointing out that it was land value, not land area, that he proposed to tax; and that farmers owned relatively lower land values compared to urban landholders. This is still true today. It is also true that farmers are burdened, by and large, by mortgages based often on speculative land values, which values would tend to fall, under a land-value tax, because of the tax capitalization effect. Further, farmers are also burdened with indirect taxes on practically everything they buy and use. Under land-value taxation farmers could acquire land a great deal more cheaply, and with the elimination of all other taxes would be relieved of the indirect levies they now pay.

    As far as their property taxes are concerned, often their taxes on houses, barns, fences, livestock, orchards, vineyards, and the like are today as high as, or higher than, would be a land-value tax based on land rent. The great mass of nonowning farmers--tenants and sharecroppers--would be infinitely better off. They already pay rent, which in many cases is higher than the land tax would be, besides all manner of indirect taxes. With the fall in land prices, they could afford in many cases to acquire land of their own.

    •  Reasoned Evaluation. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Positronicus

      "If land only is taxed, the farmer must pay the larger part of the tax and recover it from consumers in the best way he can devise. If he cannot recover it, he must stop work."

      You ARE nuts.

      •  um... (0+ / 0-)

        What you're quoting there is what's being responded to in the latter two paragraphs.

        •  The simple flaw (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Positronicus

          is the value of the land is determined by the bank, the developer, by anybody who wants to get their hands on it.

          If it is fertile, and pleasant, it can support a family if the family is prudent, learned, and hard working.

          Until, that is, until it acquires a different value, one for speculation, one for acquisition, to be bought and sold.

          When the tax basis changes, the land is unsustainable by the farmer.

          THAT is flaw of your system. That is the flaw of YOUR ... philosophy.

          You are neat, and balanced, and clean.

          You are commended.  But leave the dirt for the dirty.  Tax the clean and wealthy, who never have to clean their own nails.

          •  speculation (0+ / 0-)

            This system would significantly limit speculation in land prices.  Reasonable valuations of farmland based on the value of the productivity of the land are likely to result.  Farming would still be profitable.

            •  But farming is NOT profitable, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Positronicus

              It is self-sufficient.

              Banking is profitable.

              peace to you,
              good night

              •  profit (0+ / 0-)

                If farming is the most productive use of the land and farming is only self-sufficient, then the land won't be worth much and the taxes will be low.

                •  Unless it can be MORE PROFITABLE (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Positronicus

                  to one who does not own the land
                  and WANTS IT
                  and then your tax can be used to steal the land
                  for a more 'profitable' use
                  and a higher tax.

                  I could give you the map coordinates for an old family farm of ours
                  for you to investigate. Take your scuba gear,
                  or a bass boat
                  because it's under a hundred feet of TVA.

                  Give me some Real Estate Habeas Corpus
                  and I'll listen to you.
                  otherwise, watch out: we all keep a shotgun behind the door.

          •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

            I'm all for taxing the wealthy and generally increasing the value of labor compared to the value of capital.  Actual production should be more highly rewarded with taxes like this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site