- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Not that of the occupier(well a tiny amount as he is part of society.) . He is already collecting the tax.
Let's see if I can get this straight.
You're saying the person occupying the property, ie the "owner", has to pay the tax, therefore he's collecting it?
No, you aren't understanding this at all. If I own a piece of vacant land in the middle of Manhattan and one an almost identical one in the middle of Wyoming they have very different prices, that is because of site rent.
Yes. Property tax is rent. Glad to see you got that straight. Except, naturall, they're not "almost" identical. Nowhere near. If you were going to be precise in your terminology, you'd say, "same size acreage", etc.
Are you saying that this is caused by the owners?
It is caused by neighbors, basically.
It is caused by society.
All valuation of property is defined by two people, the owner and the potential buyer. If they come to an agreement on value, a sale may occur.
The tax, it is not really a tax in some ways,
The tax, yes, it's really a tax. It's really a tax in all ways, up to and including the gangsters with guns that will dispossess you if you don't pay it.
is simply a collection of that difference, of what is created by society and nature and is completely separate from the individual value of the improvements to the land.
Nature doesn't create the value of land, it merely created the land. Nature, being both inanimate and non-sentient, doesn't grok the concept of value.
Aside from the absurdity of linking Marx, feudalism and me in one single post there is little of value in the above. I do not deny that the individual partially holds property in natural resources from the community but that does not mean they have many other rights to it besides that of collecting the site and ground rent which are currently being taxed to go to the private landlord at great expense to society. This they should do instead of most other taxes.
"at great expense to society"? How much expense did "society" pay to create the land? Nada. How much did "society" pay to build the house on the hill George lives in? Nada. Where's this mysterious "great expense"? You're not going to babble about roads, are you, that George paid his fair share of taxes to build, just like everyone else, are you? You're not going to wobble on and on about electricity and water and sewer and all the rest are you, when George pays his share of that, are you? You're not going to utter nonsense about the highly educated force of public school graduates, are you, not when George graduated from Sidwell Friends, right?
No, the house was built at great expense by a developer, who passed the entire cost, plus a decent profit, onto the first buyer, and who passed that cost on to the next buyer, etc, and this mythical "society" not only didn't spend much, but benefitted by all that economic activity.
You are aware this tax had the support of the likes of Winston Churchill and Albert.J.Nock and was viciously attacked by Marx? You should try and actually make decent rebuttals rather than insult people, you'd come out looking a lot better.
Are You aware that name dropping and other such argumentative nonsense has zero rebuttal value and is clearly indicates a failure on your part to find valid support for your argument?