Georgism

[juju]

affect. :)

[Whit]

From Ole Miss:
If you don't own property, you don't get to vote on any bond issue that will raise property taxes.

      Since, as you point out, it does affect them, why shouldn't they vote?

      Hi Radar! How ya been?

From Radar:
Sure, it's nice to see clubs, bowling leagues, etc. But a group of individuals has no more rights than a single individual whether they call themselves a club, a town, a city, a county, a state, or a federal government.

      Quick clarification here, they have the rights of a groups worth of votes, as in each individal can combine his rights with others to greater effect. For instance the "Free State" plan you guys had. It used numbers to get what you wanted, as individuals. Which is fine. I don't think you were suggesting otherwise here, it just read funny.

[AdanSmith]

<<I am sick to death of having a bunch of apartment dwellers vote to raise property taxes because they don't think it's going to effect them. And then they get upset when their rent goes up!>>

Hate to burst your little Magpie bubble there but increases to the land portion of your property tax doesn't result in an increase in rent...

"A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon any one else." John Stuart Mills

Unless of course you want to argue with John Stuart Mills - you don't do you?

[AdanSmith]

Originally posted by Radar
We have a right to air, but hold no ownership of it.

Is our right to air not equal?

or is there one class more equal than others?

do we not hold ownership rights because individuals do not make the air?

or is it because we can't easily divide it?

Considering all these conditions above wouldn't it make sense to say we all have an inalienable right to equal access to air in it's purist form which is part of the commons and that this right is based on our equal right to life. Plus, that no one has the right to take more than their share (in the form of pollution) because by breathing in the pollution that would deny someone their equal access rights to air in it's unaltered state?

[Radar]

Radar, are you taking the opposite line now that you did in your original post?

No, I'm not. But one does have the right to breathe. And nobody owns the air we breathe. I didn't say "everybody owns the air we breathe" I said NOBODY owns it. People do own air though and airspace. If you think you can use any air you want, please get in a private plane and fly over the whitehouse, the pentagon, China, or the taj majal.


There are no "commons". Other than the idiots who think socialism is a good idea, the vast majority of the world knows that PRIVATE ownership represents freedom while "common ownership" represents oppression, always has and always will.

Plus, that no one has the right to take more than their share (in the form of pollution) because by breathing in the pollution that would deny someone their equal access rights to air in it's unaltered state?

You aren't entitled to a "share" of air. You take what you can breathe and that's it. And for the record pollution isn't taking someone's right to "air in it's unaltered state". It is trespassing, just like when you walk onto someone else's land because you think it belongs to everyone. Except in the case of land you get shot rather than fined.

[Torrere]

I'm not arguing with John Mills. I'm arguing with you. What was described in the thread was a tax on property. John Mills is describing a tax on rent. He might be taking a different perspective, anyway -- I don't know.

Technically, the burden of a tax on rent would be on the landlord, but the landlord pays with money from the tenants. So when taxes go up, rent goes up, because the rent is where the landlord gets the money to pay the tax.


--
Radar: "we have no right to land, land must be earned
Torrere: Oh. I get what you're saying now. Oops.

[Undertoad]

If y'all want to debate Georgism here you might want to define it for the masses and tell the back story.

[Radar]

Ok.

Some idiot named Henry George who falsely claimed to be a classic liberal decided to make up an ignorant and backward philosophy for theives who want to reach into your pocket to steal from you while they accuse you of being a theif. It's a slap in the face of anyone who believes in true freedom, it amounts to force, it's totally un-libertarian and against the most basic premise in classic liberalism of the non-initiation of force. They draw a false and imaginary line between property created in nature and that created by the labor of mankind as though the ownership of these types of property were somehow different.

Here's a more articulate description from another author...

Georgists, who take their name from Henry George, a nineteenth century physiocrat, believe that the ownership or use of land should be taxed. Most of them reject all other forms of taxation, so they are also known as Single Taxers. They do not believe that buildings or other improvements added by the landholder should be taxed — only the "unimproved" land.

There are many versions of Georgism, ranging from rhetorical formulations barely distinguishable from communism, to voluntary market-based arrangements sometimes described as geo-libertarian. It is difficult to get a clear picture of Georgist doctrine, because its apologists tend to slide illegitimately from one version to another logically incompatible one, according to the exigencies of the argument. We may charitably assume that this is because they often lack a sufficiently precise or coherent understanding of their own beliefs and proposals. Readers who seek to debate with Georgists should beware of this propensity (a very human failing which Georgists are by no means alone in falling prey to).

http://www.paulbirch.net/CritiqueOfGeorgism.html

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Okay, from what I've seen Georgism sounds like crap. However in interest of fair time does anyone have a link to the Georgist view point from their side?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd like to hear someone talk about the upside. This is only fair since we've not heard aything good about them yet. I don't think an opinion should be formed untill they've had their say.

[russotto]

Originally posted by AdanSmith

"A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon any one else." John Stuart Mills

Unless of course you want to argue with John Stuart Mills - you don't do you?

I'll argue with Mills, if he'll come on this board to debate. A tax on rent is like any sales tax; those who see the direct effects are the buyers (renters), not the sellers (landlords), as the tax will be passed directly on to the tenants.

[AdanSmith]

A tax on rent is like any sales tax; those who see the direct effects are the buyers (renters), not the sellers (landlords), as the tax will be passed directly on to the tenants.

The reason why is:

1. because presumably the landlord is already charging market rates so what are they going to raise it to?

2. shifting rents off of buildings and on to land will incent such a building boom of housing concentrated in the urban core that vacancy rates will soar and rents will drop like a rock.

Next!

[AdanSmith]

Okay, from what I've seen Georgism sounds like crap. However in interest of fair time does anyone have a link to the Georgist view point from their side?

neo-libertarians

read it and weep...

Originally posted by AdanSmith
2. shifting rents off of buildings and on to land will incent such a building boom of housing concentrated in the urban core that vacancy rates will soar and rents will drop like a rock.

Englisch, bitte.

Originally posted by AdanSmith
1. because presumably the landlord is already charging market rates so what are they going to raise it to?

Once you're out of a lease, the rent can be raised. Most people will put up with a minor raise (10%?) as to skip the hassle and expense of moving. Raising the rent on a tenant to cover taxes is hardly impossible.

[AdanSmith]

one does have the right to breathe

Under what principle? - spell it out exactly...

And nobody owns the air we breathe. I didn't say "everybody owns the air we breathe" I said NOBODY owns it. People do own air though and airspace.

How do you say "contradiction"?

There are no "commons". Other than the idiots who think socialism is a good idea, the vast majority of the world knows that PRIVATE ownership represents freedom while "common ownership" represents oppression, always has and always will.

excuse me there Mr. Radar but I am infact arguing that we SHOULD assign ownership rights to air. Since you can't divide it up and since it is none transferable (can't live without) I am going to make the OUTRAGEOUSLY socialistic statement that individuals (not corporations) all own it equally in common with equal access shares.

So which side are you on?...w/the commies - no ownership rights where everyone is free to use it as a dump!

or the classical liberals?

You take what you can breathe and that's it

well who is enforcing that rule?

And for the record pollution isn't taking someone's right to "air in it's unaltered state". It is trespassing, just like when you walk onto someone else's land because you think it belongs to everyone.

for the record can you tell me exactly who I am to sue for tresspassing when someone's pollution in the air that my son breathes causes him to get asthma?

and can you cite one court case that similiarly shows the successful prosecution of a tresspassing case involving air pollution? This is a lot of hot air - and the reason why they are getting away with it is exactly because we have not asserted our common access rights to air!

By assigning individual, inalienable, equal access rights to air we can demand equal compensation from polluters for over using the commons. This is a much philosophically consistent position and workable solution to pollution then after the fact legal adjudication...

The Sky Trust