This story is unavailable.

>First off, you’ve yet to address the inherent unfairness in LVT.

There is no unfairness. That’s just a false claim you can’t support with facts or logic.

>If it goes into effect before Bob sells to Alice, then Bob is 1M$ poorer. If it happens after the sale, then Alice is 1M$ poorer. That’s completely arbitrary.

No it’s not. It’s the just removal of an unjust privilege from the holder of that privilege, much like emancipating slaves. It’s the privilege that’s arbitrary, not the ending of it. green_meklar already rubbed your nose in the evil you advocate and are still trying to rationalize and justify.

>It has nothing to do with the marginal utility of Alice or Bob’s dollars (i.e. their wealth)

That’s because marginal utility has nothing to do with liberty or justice. LVT is liberty and justice, which you don’t seem to like very much.

>It has nothing to do with any particular action they took.

Why even bother with such transparently false and absurd claims? The action the landowner took was to try to make himself the beneficiary of injustice and the uncompensated abrogation of others’ rights, just like the buyer of a slave. There’s nothing arbitrary about emancipating slaves, its OWNING slaves that is arbitrary. The fact that emancipation has to happen at some point in time, whereon those who have managed to get out beforehand get away with having owned slaves while those who don’t are left holding the bag is not arbitrary. It’s the rightful penalty for trying to extend an injustice past its best-before date.


>It’s a lottery.

Garbage. Those who are caught owning slaves at the moment of emancipation rightfully lose every penny of their “investments.” Simple. While it is true that those who have sold their slaves prior to emancipation have profited unjustly from slavery, leaving the purchasers holding the bag, that is not a valid reason to postpone — let alone to abjure — emancipation.

>It sounds like you’re talking about: controllability, use privilege, excludability, and transferability. But LVT has nothing to do with any of these rights — it’s just a tax.

No, your claims are false, disingenuous, and absurd. It is specifically by paying the LVT that the landholder obtains the first three rights. If he doesn’t pay the LVT, he loses them and someone else gets them. That is another reason LVT is not just a tax. It is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. You have simply decided not to know that fact, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. With taxes, if you don’tpay, government comes after you and takes your wages or even puts you in jail. With LVT, you just don’t get to keep the three rights you are refusing to pay for.

>These are two orthogonal issues.

More garbage, as proved above.

>LVT has nothing to do with excludability. It’s just a tax.

No, that’s just another bald falsehood from you. LVT is ALL ABOUT excludability: if you pay it, you get to exclude others; if you don’t, someone else gets to exclude you.

Clay, how many more times, and in how many more different ways, do I have to prove you flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?

>If you’re suggesting LVT be bundled with a provision that eliminates the landowner’s right to exclude others from using it, then I’ll be happy to come to your house and plant a garden in your yard for me to consume.

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? The landholder obtains the PRIVILEGE of excluding others — he certainly has no RIGHT to do so (other than a legal one, like the slave owner’s legal right to whip his slaves) otherwise — BY PAYING the LVT. HELLO??

and only pro forma ownership because that’s how our legal system works. It’s no more actual ownership than paying someone wages makes them your slave as long as you continue paying them.

> I’m having a hard time following.

Try paying attention.

>You start by saying that our current legal system allows “only pro forma ownership”, not “actual ownership”.

No, that’s the system under LVT, as distinct from the current one. The current one gives all four rights to the landowner, just as the antebellum South did to slave owners.

>So if you’re objecting to the current system, then you’re objecting to “pro forma ownership”.

Nope. See above. I’m objecting to uncompensated removal of people’s rights to liberty.

>And again, LVT has nothing to do with the rules of land ownership. It’s just a tax.

Again, that’s objectively false, as proved above. The rule under LVT is precisely that if you don’t pay it, you don’t get to keep ownership of the land.

we don’t know what the future land rent will be, so there is no way to calculate NPV

>I’ve acknowledged this obvious fact a several points in this thread.

Then why do you keep falsely claiming that LVT is equivalent to a one-time payment, when it clearly isn’t?

>But the ability to predict the NPV is irrelevant to the point that the LVT is equivalent to an NPV.

No, because I just proved it isn’t. NPV isn’t something that is predicted for the future. It is a payment that would have to be made now, and it can’t, for the reasons given.

>The real point I’m getting at is that there’s no inherent benefit to charging landowners a perpetuity vs. a one-time charge.

But that’s objectively false, for the reasons I already gave — not least that current officials have no right to sell off the liberty rights of all future generations.

second, the future land rent will be created by the public services and infrastructure provided then

>This is like the fifth time you’ve repeated the naive bundling fallacy.

No, Clay. That is not a fallacy. It is a plain fact. It is YOU who are disingenuously pretending that there is no relationship between land rent and publicly provided services and infrastructure. Paying the market price for what you take is not a “bundling fallacy.” It is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. Your claim is effectively that if someone has been taking bread from the bakery without paying for it, and the baker decides to start charging him for it, it’s a “naive bundling fallacy” for the baker to link the act of paying for the bread to the act of taking it home. That is just absurd and dishonest nonsense.

>What you are addressing here is the positive externality caused by public activities. Positive externalities are addressed by subsidies not taxes.

No, that’s just false. A subsidy has to be FUNDED BY taxes, which inherently compound the injustice and inefficiency of not recovering the subsidy given to the landowner via public spending on services and infrastructure. Forcibly transferring wealth from taxpayers who have earned it to landowners who haven’t is grotesquely bad economics, which might be why ALL competent economists know you are wrong about LVT.

>It seems like you’re simply missing this important economic fact.

It’s not a fact, it is merely your objectively incorrect opinion.