Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even the Pittsburgh Real Estate Board (now known as the Association of Realtors) had joined with the Single Tax Club [Land Valuation Tax] of Pittsburgh, the Civic Commission, the Pittsburgh Board of Trade, the Civic Club of Allegheny County and other organizations in support of the bill. The Pittsburgh Dispatch wrote: "The realty board endorsed the act and recommended its passage and is anxious to have the Governor approve it." They sent a delegation to Harrisburg to urge passage of the bill.
Realtors should get back to sense and adopt the stance of those in Pittsburgh.
When an argument is based upon false premises, you will inevitably come up with faulty conclusions. There is little logic to the idea that dramatically raising property taxes on land would be a universally good thing. In fact, it sounds rather dumb. Property taxes are arguably already the most inequitable form of taxation since they bear little relation to ones ability to pay.
When an argument is based upon false premises, you will inevitably come up with faulty conclusions. There is little logic to the idea that dramatically raising property taxes on land would be a universally good thing. In fact, it sounds rather dumb. Property taxes are arguably already the most inequitable form of taxation since they bear little relation to ones ability to pay.
When the blogger claimed that Pittsburgh handily recovered from the cratering of Big Steel, I just about spit coffee all over my screen.
It was painful, very painful, for that city.
There is little logic to the idea that dramatically raising property taxes on land would be a universally good thing. In fact, it sounds rather dumb. Property taxes are arguably already the most inequitable form of taxation since they bear little relation to ones ability to pay.
The idea is that you replace property taxes on building and land with property taxes on the land only. It isn't as progressive as a graduated income tax, but it is more equitable than taxes on land and buildings since rich people really spread out over much more land.
When an argument is based upon false premises, you will inevitably come up with faulty conclusions. There is little logic to the idea that dramatically raising property taxes on land would be a universally good thing. In fact, it sounds rather dumb. Property taxes are arguably already the most inequitable form of taxation since they bear little relation to ones ability to pay.
You need to understand land and where commonly created wealth ends up. Land Value Tax is NOT a property tax. It reclaims commonly created wealth that soaked into the land that crystalizes as land values. The landowner does not create the value in the land - the economic activity of the community does. Land Value TAX is a misnomer as it is not a tax - it needs rewording. It is based on the value of the land, assessed annually. The value goes up, so doe the levy. It the value goes down so does the levy. The buildings are not considered. All land, occupied or not, is due the levy. Collect full LVT, on the annual rental value and income and sales taxes can be eliminated. Income tax is a tax on production and Sales tax a tax on trade - the last things we should be taxing. LVT is simply using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. What you earn you keep. How much common sense is that?
The idea is that you replace property taxes on building and land with property taxes on the land only. It isn't as progressive as a graduated income tax,
LVT is the only progressive tax - Income Tax was a temporary tax for the UK to fund the Napoleonic wars. British landopweners saw way of pushing taxation from their lucrative acres to the productive ordinary people. Income tax is not progressive and does exactly the opposite. The only progressive tax is the taxation of land by its value.
LVT reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services. It is lauded as brilliant for funding infrastructure - Hong Kong built a whole underground metro using it.
LVT is the only progressive tax (it was a temporary tax for the UK to fund the Napoleonic wars). Income tax is not progressive and does exactly the opposite. The only progressive tax is the taxation of land by its value.
What? Income tax as currently done at the federal level in the United States is progressive. The marginal rate is higher for higher incomes.
Land Value TAX is a misnomer as it is not a tax - it needs rewording. It is based on the value of the land, assessed annually. The value goes up, so doe the levy.
LVT is simply using commonly created wealth to pay for common services. What you earn you keep. How much common sense is that?
You can try to parse your words as much as you'd like, but a tax, by any other name, is still a tax. You can call a pig a cow, but that doesn't make it so.
You can also use such meaningless phrases as "commonly created wealth" but that does not advance your argument. You're not making sense.
I also reject your fundamental assumption that land with buildings upon it is better than land without. Some land should never be built upon: wetlands, floodplains, farm land, forests, etc. And to proffer that "rich people" own most of the land, so it is okay to simply tax rich people is wrong on both fronts.
You can try to parse your words as much as you'd like, but a tax, by any other name, is still a tax. You can call a pig a cow, but that doesn't make it so.
A shopkeeper must pay more tax than others by your logic, so that is unfair. He pays the Sales Tax to the government. The tax on some of the products he sells.
It is clear you do not understand that wealth can be created "commonly" - by us all. Our wealth. This is economic fact, not my opinion. Nothing I have written is my opinion.
I did not make a fundamental assumption that land with buildings upon it is better than land without. Land is land and must be used to maximum efficiency and productive use. A park in a city, empty land, is productive as it gives leisure to the population who in turn are more productive.
This concept is huge in the USA where it has its biggest following. Look up Henry George who added to this movement. Winston Churchill, Tolstoy, Einstein, etc. were all massive fans.
When an argument is based upon false premises, you will inevitably come up with faulty conclusions. There is little logic to the idea that dramatically raising property taxes on land would be a universally good thing. In fact, it sounds rather dumb. Property taxes are arguably already the most inequitable form of taxation since they bear little relation to ones ability to pay.
Reclaiming commonly created wealth that emerges as land values, is not property tax. The levy is based on the land's value. If the value goes up, the levy goes up, if it goes down so does the levy. Land Value Tax is not a tax on property. The property is the building which is exempt. All land is commonly owned, when you buy land you get a map of the plot on the sovereign territory and a set of right. You only have "title", a means to "occupy" that land. LVT is targeted at land, all land, whether a building is on it or not, and what you must fully understand, set by the value of the land, set annually. If the land is worth near zero, then you pay zero. If you are in Manhattan then you pay more.
Land has an amazing ability to soak up the economic activity of the community crystallizing as land values. Land Value Tax reclaims this common wealth. LVT does not look at the ability to pay. It has mechanisms for exemption and to pay back on death or sale of land. With LVT you can move to an area with a lower LVT rating and pay less. You cannot do that with Income Tax.
Look at the history of Income Tax. The more you work the more your wealth is stolen from you. It was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars. The landed British aristocracy saw the opportunity to keep it and push taxation onto the working productive people. Then the idle rich got richer. Revenue was primarily claimed from land prior to Income Tax. Since then in western countries, the richest have been idle landowners. The richest man in the UK is the Duke of Westminster, a landowner, who gets rich in his sleep. LVT reverses the trickle up effect meaning the wealth ends up in the hands of a few percent. In the UK, 0.6% of the population own 70% of the land. They know where the easy money is. The USA is clearly going the same way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
