The Fair Tax

Wessexman said:

I disagree. It is still a tax on labour.

Click to expand...

How is a sales tax a tax primarily on labor? No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. What we have right now is primarily a tax on labor as earned income is taxed significently higher than passive income.

obvious Child said:

How is a sales tax a tax primarily on labor? No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. What we have right now is primarily a tax on labor as earned income is taxed significently higher than passive income.

Click to expand...

Because it is on things produced by labour, it just hits you in a slightly different place to income taxes. Instead of being taxed when you make something from labour you are taxed when you buy something of such.

It is far better to use the land value tax on ground and site rent, it is already in use but currently goes to the private landlord who collects the produce of society and nature.

Wessexman said:

Because it is on things produced by labour, it just hits you in a slightly different place to income taxes. Instead of being taxed when you make something from labour you are taxed when you buy something of such.

It is far better to use the land value tax on ground and site rent, it is already in use but currently goes to the private landlord who collects the produce of society and nature.

Click to expand...

All taxes are based on someone's labor one way or another.

Even land taxes are based on what land someone was able to buy because of their labor.

However, I can't see how a property tax is better then a sales tax in any way.

A property tax taxes someone on their property which may reduce someone's incentive to purchase land and consume, but a sales tax does something even better by taxing people when they consume in general.

A sales tax also has the benefits of not being a capital gains tax, so it does not reduce investments. A property tax is simillar to that, but property is also a form of an investment in the productivity of a certain area. We shouldn't put a discentive on that form of investment.


Also, a property tax seems to be limited greatly in how much revenue it can produce because the tax is concentrated on people who have land. However a sales tax can have a larger tax base because it involves when anyone consumes anything.

so... a sales tax is really the best tax.

nerv14 said:

All taxes are based on someone's labor one way or another.

Even land taxes are based on what land someone was able to buy because of their labor.

Click to expand...

However a land value tax is based on the income to that land that comes from society and nature.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax]Land value tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Land value taxation (LVT) (or site value taxation) is an ad valorem tax on the value of land. This ignores buildings, improvements, and personal property. Because of this, LVT is different from other property taxes on real estate — the combination of land, buildings, and improvements to land. Every jurisdiction that has a real estate property tax has an element of land value tax, because land value contributes to overall property value.[1]

However, I can't see how a property tax is better then a sales tax in any way.

A property tax taxes someone on their property which may reduce someone's incentive to purchase land and consume, but a sales tax does something even better by taxing people when they consume in general.

A sales tax also has the benefits of not being a capital gains tax, so it does not reduce investments. A property tax is simillar to that, but property is also a form of an investment in the productivity of a certain area. We shouldn't put a discentive on that form of investment.


Also, a property tax seems to be limited greatly in how much revenue it can produce because the tax is concentrated on people who have land. However a sales tax can have a larger tax base because it involves when anyone consumes anything.

so... a sales tax is really the best tax.

Click to expand...

I'm not advocating a property tax. I'm advocating a land value tax, a collection of ground rent, created by nature, and site rent, created by society, by the community. Improvements are not included.

This tax helps to make up for the evils of private ownership of natural resources by taking that portion of income that is unearned by the owner and comes simply from nature and the work of society as a whole, this helps to end land monopolisation and speculation as profiting from land values you yourself did not create becomes almost impossible. This helps to make land more freely available, it also increases wages as a lot of the increased production of land goes to the owner of ground and site rent when the LVT is not enforced. It does all this while not taxing labour and reinforcing the importance of private ownership, even of land(minus ground rent and site rent of course.). It is also just about the only tax the rich cannot move a lot of the burden to the poor with, nor does it reduce profitable investment, quite the opposite.

Interesting links:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism[/ame]


http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

The School of Cooperative Individualism / Welcome Page

Wessexman said:

However a land value tax is based on the income to that land that comes from society and nature.

Land value tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Land value taxation (LVT) (or site value taxation) is an ad valorem tax on the value of land. This ignores buildings, improvements, and personal property. Because of this, LVT is different from other property taxes on real estate — the combination of land, buildings, and improvements to land. Every jurisdiction that has a real estate property tax has an element of land value tax, because land value contributes to overall property value.[1]

I'm not advocating a property tax. I'm advocating a land value tax, a collection of ground rent, created by nature, and site rent, created by society, by the community. Improvements are not included.

This tax helps to make up for the evils of private ownership of natural resources by taking that portion of income that is unearned by the owner and comes simply from nature and the work of society as a whole, this helps to end land monopolisation and speculation as profiting from land values you yourself did not create becomes almost impossible. This helps to make land more freely available, it also increases wages as a lot of the increased production of land goes to the owner of ground and site rent when the LVT is not enforced. It does all this while not taxing labour and reinforcing the importance of private ownership, even of land(minus ground rent and site rent of course.). It is also just about the only tax the rich cannot move a lot of the burden to the poor with, nor does it reduce profitable investment, quite the opposite.

Interesting links:

Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

The School of Cooperative Individualism / Welcome Page

Click to expand...

ahhh... I see. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

Yeah, when I was looking in wikipedia about "liberal-libertarians" or "democratic-libertarians" it talked about this type of tax on land and natural resources.

I said to myself that I supported that tax because about how natural resources are in limited suppply forever (when things like wealth or population) can grow expodentially.

I agree with that tax that you were talking about, but I just see problems with it from people originally buying land from the government at one point. I just believe if you tax land after someone purchases it, then that isn't really buying that land, only renting it. That relates to my distaste of taxes on property.

Maybe if the government was more direct, in how people can only "rent" land (from having to pay taxes on it) then I would support a land tax more.


Edit: thanks for the links. The wikipedia one was very interesting, so I will check out the others.

nerv14 said:

ahhh... I see. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

Yeah, when I was looking in wikipedia about "liberal-libertarians" or "democratic-libertarians" it talked about this type of tax on land and natural resources.

I said to myself that I supported that tax because about how natural resources are in limited suppply forever (when things like wealth or population) can grow expodentially.

Click to expand...

A key plank to Georgism is the reduction or removal of most or all other taxes, which must not be forgotten. It is not just another tax. In general I'm suspicious of the more simplistic plans that seem to offer a few simple but often radical changes as the salvation of society but George's(and Thomas Paine's, Jefferson's and all the others who have echoed George's ideas on land.) one, in moderation at least, makes excellent argument, imho.

I agree with that tax that you were talking about, but I just see problems with it from people originally buying land from the government at one point. I just believe if you tax land after someone purchases it, then that isn't really buying that land, only renting it. That relates to my distaste of taxes on property.

Click to expand...

Well it is there many ways you could set up the tax, including only when land is sold or rented. The only thing to be taxed is the site and ground rent, all the rest is not included and the exemptions can be othered, most obviously for average size residential properties. Also I personally advocate it being collected locally, so as to make it a community or regional collection thing and not one by enforced by a centralised state.

Wessexman said:

A key plank to Georgism is the reduction or removal of most or all other taxes, which must not be forgotten. It is not just another tax. In general I'm suspicious of the more simplistic plans that seem to offer a few simple but often radical changes as the salvation of society but George's(and Thomas Paine's, Jefferson's and all the others who have echoed George's ideas on land.) one, in moderation at least, makes excellent argument, imho.


Well it is there many ways you could set up the tax, including only when land is sold or rented. The only thing to be taxed is the site and ground rent, all the rest is not included and the exemptions can be othered, most obviously for average size residential properties. Also I personally advocate it being collected locally, so as to make it a community or regional collection thing and not one by enforced by a centralised state.

Click to expand...

Right now, my position has changed from just supporting a sales tax for all revenue and now also having a land value tax. So I still believe something different then the "geoists."


I found some interesting links

Foldvary: Geoism and Libertarianism

Any libertarians should read this, and it really connects a tax on land as the best possible choice of taxation.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism]Geolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism]Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

or for more economic info

http://www.wealthandwant.com/pdf/Batt_Property_Tax_Inelastic_Supply.pdf

nerv14 said:

Right now, my position has changed from just supporting a sales tax for all revenue and now also having a land value tax. So I still believe something different then the "geoists."

Click to expand...

One critique of the LVT is that it couldn't provide all the revenue that a modern state requires. Obviously this is more from a liberal than small-gov't perspective and it does not take into account the fact that of all taxes the LVT is likely to have some quite positive effects on the economy and society, probably reducing the need for gov't spending by a modest but not insignificant amount.

But still I agree it is unlikely to provide all revenue needs at least for the short-term, what I advise is reducing or removing most taxes and implementing a LVT and perhaps tarrifs, not really as protectionism but with the view that if you have to tax sale you might as well start with these. Then yes I'd consider a Sales tax if need be.

I found some interesting links

Foldvary: Geoism and Libertarianism

Any libertarians should read this, and it really connects a tax on land as the best possible choice of taxation.


Geolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or for more economic info

http://www.wealthandwant.com/pdf/Batt_Property_Tax_Inelastic_Supply.pdf

Click to expand...

Henry George's Progress and Poverty is worth a read, although it is not easy reading, there are some more modern updates by various authors which might be the best place to start bookwise.

You know I rarely win someone over like you seem to have been. I hope you enjoy your searchings in Georgism.

Re: The Fair Tax is a Fraud

tlmorg02 said:

Like Goshin, I support it in theory, unless the rate is Outrageous.

Click to expand...

Alas.
The Real Rate IS Outrageous.

Independent scorings put it in the Mid 50s% Range.
Not including you have to add in State Sales taxes averaging 6%.. and convert state Income Taxes to Sales taxes too to make the thing worth doing.
So we're talking in the Mid-60s% Range at least.

And many don't know even to achieve their Lying rate of "23% inclusive" (which is 30% the way you and I know a Sales tax is calculated now), they Tax EVERYTHING.

Government buys a Jet, Tank? 30%

Unlike State Taxes... Little things like New HOUSES are Taxed.

How about Taxing RENT 30%-60%? Yes RENT is taxed.
Anyone live in NY, Boston, SF, LA, gonna afford that?
Who's going to be able to save for a taxed House if they get Creamed on Rent?

Prescriptions, Health Insurance, (car insurance etc) Medical procedures.
Yup Heart/Kidney Transplant-- Whammo.

FOOD.

Everything.


And I know who'll pay less.
Buffett, Eisner, Head of Goldman Sachs, etc who now pay a 35% tax on Income (and 15-35% on Short gains, Capital Gains, Dividends, Estate, etc).
ALL Gone.

The very wealthy, now only have to pay 23/30% on what they spend.. which is a hell of alot less than 35% on what they make!

In fact (and Obviously) the more you make the lower the Percent of your income you spend to live.

So since Fairtax claims to be "Revenue Neutral".. and the Rich Definitely pay less... WHO Pays more?

Fairtax is complete Fraud and a Joke of one too.
Unsurprisingly created by 2 Texas Billionaires.
By the math.. not even a serious proposal and would never get past hearings that would destroy it.

Extra - WSJ.com

"....The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30.
Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.

This is only the beginning of the Deceptions in the FairTax...."


".....A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%.

In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

I've emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%...."

Click to expand...

And of course, evasion would go through the Roof forcing the rate yet higher, IMO, more like 100% all told (Fed, State/local sales/income, etc)

Everyone goes cash and barter- the economy goes underground to avoid this HUGE tax.

An incentive for Evasion approaching that of Drug Profits.
-

Re: The Fair Tax is a Fraud

mbig said:

Alas.
The Real Rate IS Outrageous.

Independent scorings put it in the Mid 50s% Range.
Not including you have to add in State Sales taxes averaging 6%.. and convert state Income Taxes to Sales taxes too to make the thing worth doing.
So we're talking in the Mid-60s% Range at least.

And many don't know even to achieve their Lying rate of "23% inclusive" (which is 30% the way you and I know a Sales tax is calculated now), they Tax EVERYTHING.

Government buys a Jet, Tank? 30%

Unlike State Taxes... Little things like New HOUSES are Taxed.

How about Taxing RENT 30%-60%? Yes RENT is taxed.
Anyone live in NY, Boston, SF, LA, gonna afford that?
Who's going to be able to save for a taxed House if they get Creamed on Rent?

Prescriptions, Health Insurance, (car insurance etc) Medical procedures.
Yup Heart/Kidney Transplant-- Whammo.

FOOD.

Everything.


And I know who'll pay less.
Buffett, Eisner, Head of Goldman Sachs, etc who now pay a 35% tax on Income (and 15-35% on Short gains, Capital Gains, Dividends, Estate, etc).
ALL Gone.

The very wealthy, now only have to pay 23/30% on what they spend.. which is a hell of alot less than 35% on what they make!

In fact (and Obviously) the more you make the lower the Percent of your income you spend to live.

So since Fairtax claims to be "Revenue Neutral".. and the Rich Definitely pay less... WHO Pays more?

Fairtax is complete Fraud and a Joke of one too.
Unsurprisingly created by 2 Texas Billionaires.
By the math.. not even a serious proposal and would never get past hearings that would destroy it.

Extra - WSJ.com



And of course, evasion would go through the Roof forcing the rate yet higher, IMO, more like 100% all told (Fed, State/local sales/income, etc)

Everyone goes cash and barter- the economy goes underground to avoid this HUGE tax.

An incentive for Evasion approaching that of Drug Profits.
-

Click to expand...

So it would have to be tax inclusive... that means EVERYTHING is taxed. This includes food and medicine. So its 36% then.

And you are missing the large amounts of tax evasion that occurs under the income tax. The income tax is collected for each person that works, while the sales tax is only collected at the sellers of products. This would significantly make it easier for the taxes to be collected.

and I don't have the source, but something like 75% or higher of all goods that would be taxed with a national sales tax are purchased from very large companies. And those companies would not risk trying to evade sales taxes.


Also, to be practical with a plan in the short run, I can at least imagine that medicare and SS are taxed from income and the rest of the federal budget can be taxed on sales tax (or even in combination with land taxes).

Re: The Fair Tax is a Fraud

nerv14 said:

So it would have to be tax inclusive... that means EVERYTHING is taxed. This includes food and medicine. So its 36% then.

Click to expand...

No.
I'm sorry but you are Clueless.

"Inclusive" and "exclusive" are just ways of Calculating Taxes NOT what's "included IN THEM!!

ie
An Item that now costs $1.00 retail will cost $1.30 under Fairtax.
Fairtax calls this a "23% inclusive" rate (subtracting 23% from 1.30)...
Instead of the way we all know, calculate and pay taxes now.
Where this transaction is well known as a 30% Tax.

so "36% inclusive" is Really 57% Sales tax ("exclusive") the way we all know and pay it now.
IOW, a $1.00 item will cost $1.57.
(not including state sales taxes etc)

It's explained in the link nand my post you didn't comprehend at all.

This doesn't change that Fairtax will tax EVERYTHING.: Food, Houses, Rent, Medical, etc.

Wessexman said:

I disagree. It is still a tax on labour.

It is to Henry George that we must turn for the best taxation solution. It is a solution that not only does not tax individual labour but also helps to establish distributive justice and remedy the ills of private ownership of land and natural resources.

Click to expand...

There are no ills to the private owernship of land that aren't made worse by either denying ownership to anyone or pretending everyone owns it.

Ditto that for natural resources.

A sales tax taxes purchases, not labor.

Wessexman said:

However a land value tax is based on the income to that land that comes from society and nature.

Click to expand...

"society".

So you mean "labor".

Wessexman said:

I'm not advocating a property tax. I'm advocating a land value tax, a collection of ground rent, created by nature, and site rent, created by society, by the community. Improvements are not included.

Click to expand...

Someone owns the land, that person is responsible for paying your "land value" tax, therefore is it completely indistinguishable from a property tax. And when property is taxed the putative owner is nothing more than a leaseholder, his occupation of the land being dependent upon his continued payment of rent to the owner, in which the goverment is the owner and the rent being the tax.

So what people are supporting, whether they've paid attention or not, when they support any form of land tax, is the restoration of feudalism.

Good job, Karl.

Wessexman said:

The only thing to be taxed is the site and ground rent, all the rest is not included and the exemptions can be othered, most obviously for average size residential properties. Also I personally advocate it being collected locally, so as to make it a community or regional collection thing and not one by enforced by a centralised state.

Click to expand...

Right. The value of a plot of land is therefore not estimated by the value of the improvements made to is, ie structures or landscaping, but is instead determined by the value of the improvements to the adjacent properties.

Way to go with the deceitful promotion of an unnecessary tax.

nerv14 said:

Any libertarians should read this, and it really connects a tax on land as the best possible choice of taxation.

Click to expand...

No. Turning owners into renters does not promote the cause of liberty and freedom.

Geoism and Libertarianism, eh?

Libertarianism is the philosophy of live and let live. Its ethic is that it is morally wrong to coercively harm others, and not morally wrong to do what is not harmful to others.

Click to expand...

Libetarianism ethos is that it's wrong to coerce someone, not that it's wrong to coercivelly harm other. There's tons of coercive laws for "our own good", that are flat out wrong. Seat belts, for example.

Geoism is the philosophy of sharing the benefits of the land (geo), while respecting the equal self-ownership of persons.

Click to expand...

Geoism is, therefore, anti-libertarian. Any benefits "shared" are shared by the owner of the land selling what he produces from his land for profit, or by renting the use of his land, or other modes in which the owner voluntarily seeks to exchange his gain for cash on the free and open market.

Any involuntary mode of taxation in which a non-owner seeks to horn in on the owners profits is not a libertarian process.

Libertarianism and geoism are complements. Geoism fills the lack of an adequate view of public finance in conventional libertarianism, while libertarianism provides a more complete view of the geoist aim of free trade.

Click to expand...

Oh, is that so? Libertarians must be ignorant because they don't accept feudalism as a preferred course of government finance?

All taxation should be voluntary, ie, one can choose to not pay the tax by not engaging in the service taxed or buying the product taxed. That makes sales taxes the ultimate libertarian tax to finance the minimalist government a stable requires.

May the day come when "geoism" and "libertarianism" are synonyms, meaning the same thing!

Click to expand...

Wow, they had to define the word "synonym", a word most people learn in the third grade. No, the two words will never be synonyms, because they have different meanings.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No. Turning owners into renters does not promote the cause of liberty and freedom.

Click to expand...

One of the main arguments for having a land tax is simply that a government NEEDS some form of taxation to exist, and a land tax seems one of the least invasive.


But if you want a limited government (only military, government and judicial systems) then it makes the most sense to only tax what can not be created by capital. And the only thing that people do not create in free enterprise is land and other natural resources. That means that people will be as free as possible to invest their money in anything else that can really be created.

The link I got does go over the top about how land taxation and libertarians are so simillar, but it still makes sense that for a libertarian, a land tax would be the prefferable tax.

Every business owes much of its success to the infrastructure of the country they sell in. Bill Gates couldn't sell computer software if there weren't telephones and highways and a power grid and educated people to hire and buy from him.

As he makes more and more profit it has more to do with there being a market that is easy to reach and wealthy and less and less to do with being very clever and a good businessman.

Business taxes should be very progressive. Taxes should be based on the privilege of doing business in the US. Take your company overseas? Well if you want to sell your products in the US you have to pay.

So no, Fair Tax just isn't my idea of a fair system.

I envision more of a system where the US is a sort of stockholder of all businesses and collects its fairly earned dividends every year from corporations. Most taxes should come from companies allowed the privilege to sell here and use our infrastructure.

nerv14 said:

One of the main arguments for having a land tax is simply that a government NEEDS some form of taxation to exist, and a land tax seems one of the least invasive.

Click to expand...

A land tax is the most invasive, as California discovered in the 1970's as it's state government began taxing everyone that didn't move because it couldn't escape, and thereby forcing retirees out of their homes.

nerv14 said:

But if you want a limited government (only military, government and judicial systems) then it makes the most sense to only tax what can not be created by capital.

Click to expand...

No, it makes the most sense to tax what people can choose to not buy, taxing land isn't one of those things.

All sorts of items come under the optional heading.

Tax those.

Also, I see no reason that a one-time point of sale tax for real property wouldn't be appropriate, that could be folded into the mortgage, even. However, a permanent annual tax on land is nothing except the government usurping ownership rights from the people.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Right. The value of a plot of land is therefore not estimated by the value of the improvements made to is, ie structures or landscaping, but is instead determined by the value of the improvements to the adjacent properties.

Way to go with the deceitful promotion of an unnecessary tax.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Is there any possibility that you could make intelligent contributions that don't include personal insults?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

There are no ills to the private owernship of land that aren't made worse by either denying ownership to anyone or pretending everyone owns it.

Ditto that for natural resources.

Click to expand...

Who is doing that? The ownership of land is not in question, simply that of ground rent and site rent.

There are plenty of evils from land monopolisation and speculation, which usually comes about because the state has pre-empted and granted almost all land.

A sales tax taxes purchases, not labor.

Click to expand...

Which are made by labour and mostly purchased by it.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

"society".

So you mean "labor".

Click to expand...

Not that of the occupier(well a tiny amount as he is part of society.) . He is already collecting the tax.

Someone owns the land, that person is responsible for paying your "land value" tax, therefore is it completely indistinguishable from a property tax.

Click to expand...

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. Are you saying that this is caused by the owners? It is caused by society. The tax, it is not really a tax in some ways, 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.

So what people are supporting, whether they've paid attention or not, when they support any form of land tax, is the restoration of feudalism.

Good job, Karl.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No. Turning owners into renters does not promote the cause of liberty and freedom.

Click to expand...

I'm very much a believer in private property but that does not mean you have an absolute right to any kind of property. Which seems to be what you are saying. That you owe to society the ground rent and site rent created by them and nature is not to say you are a renter. The rights of society go only so far so as to create the necessary individual and family liberty allowing private property in land without the downsides.

Wessexman said:

Who is doing that? The ownership of land is not in question, simply that of ground rent and site rent.

Click to expand...

No. The ownership of the land is in question. If the government can impose a rent, the "owner" isn't the guy who's name is on the documents, but the guy in the state capital setting the tax rates.

Wessexman said:

There are plenty of evils from land monopolisation and speculation, which usually comes about because the state has pre-empted and granted almost all land.

Click to expand...

Naturally. Almost all evil in the world comes from government.

Wessexman said:

I'm very much a believer in private property but that does not mean you have an absolute right to any kind of property.

Click to expand...

So in reality you like to say you believe in private property but that's has nothing to do with what you actually believe.

Wessexman said:

Which seems to be what you are saying. That you owe to society the ground rent and site rent created by them and nature is not to say you are a renter.

Click to expand...

No. I said I believe in private property, which means the owner of property, by definition, doesn't have to pay rent to someone else.

A one time point-of-purchase sales tax on a land transaction is not rent, no more than the sales tax you paid for your iPod is a rental fee.

Wessexman said:

The rights of society

Click to expand...

Society has no rights. Not one single one. People have legal guarantees that the government will not intrude in certain areas, and some of these are so basic that their mistaken for rights, but the reality is that the concept of "rights" is nothing more than sloppy verbal shorthand for saying "butt out, myob, not your concern here".

Wessexman said:

go only so far so as to create the necessary individual and family liberty allowing private property in land without the downsides.

Click to expand...

There are no downsides to private ownership of land.