Latest draft. Thanks for the comments. Listening to Schiff radio today and they had a quest talking about Buffalo in Montana, later there was a rebuttal call basically claiming the fraud and mismanagement of of government ranch lands. Median rent would lease lands to the highest bidder every 5 years.

Chapter X - Land Value Tax is a Wrong too - The Problem.

The Land Value Tax (LVT) as proposed by Henry George is a single tax on land, high enough that the value of land would go to zero. If an apartment, a house, a business, and a vacant lot occupy the same amount of land in the same area, they all would pay the same property tax. The money would go to the city government as the only tax they collect. The LVT is a major blunder by Mr. George despite a great book overall. George was from an era when there were no income taxes and small government burden. "We must make land common property." writes George. LVT does not make land common property, it makes land owned by government.

Murray Rothbard did a review of the land value tax and came up with some good points, it would be extremely hard to find the true site value as even empty land has improvements. He also claims society does not own the land the State would own the land. It would simply transfer this ownership from producers to bureaucrats. "A newborn Pakistani baby would have a moral claim to ownership of a piece of Iowa land someone has just transformed into a wheat field" writes Rothbard.

"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." says Ayn Rand. "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes". In her book Atlas Shrugged, it depicted Taggert Transcontinental a railroad of massive acreage owned by one family. This railroad denies other people to use the land for their railroad or the government a highway.

In Hong Kong or areas with a land value tax there are certain tenants that can barely afford the land tax. They live under massive poverty while the real estate tycoons that own the apartments are the richest people in the country. The cities with the highest property values in the United States often have the highest level of homelessness, just spend a walk in Santa Barbara or San Diego. These people can not afford the property tax as is.

If poor had the right to live on rent-free land they would be able to use their income to improving their lives by saving and investing. Instead their money is spent support the city workers, mortgage, and real estate industries. The city requires permits even to install a water heater and your house has to be built their way and their size to boost the property tax. They collect tax for libraries and parks you don't even use.

Imagine a person living on 1 acre of desert land and the price per acre might be $500. Another person lives on a lot in Malibu and the lot might cost $500,000 an acre. How is that fair when the guy in the deserts kid ends up in Vietnam or Iraq, while the kids of the guy living in Malibu sits on the beach with cool breezes all day. Someone living in an apartment should pay the same tax to the city as a house, they use the same amount of police, fire, and water. According to George, an apartment dweller would get a tax break. You should pay for the services you use. The services should be independent of the land rent.

The more improvements that are done, the higher the prices are for land. The poor are priced out of the market, from their fathers that built the trains and roads. Their only crime, they did not make much money. Furthermore, the poor must pay the rent, insurance, and property taxes, before they buy anything else. If not they end up on the street. All the while the land owner is using the rents to accumulate more and more land, once they reach critical mass where their rents exceed their spending all they do is accumulate land.

George was wrong about assuming government property is common property. Rand and Rothbard were wrong about allowing individuals to own land. Land is limited and unlike Rembrants is necessary for life, food, energy, and shelter. A small percentage of individuals and government are not society. Land under your feet should be free like air. The question is what are the logistics to make this happen.

Chapter X - Average Rent - The Solution.

If rents should not be collected for government or individuals, who should collect the rents? The land of a country should be owned as if each person was a shareholder. If you use more land than your fair share, you should pay rent to those that use less land. All property lots are auctioned and leased to the highest bidder as 10 year and 5 year leases. All money collected from the land lease auctions is placed in a fund called the land rent pool. The pool should be divided equally to residents as a monthly check. Every person over 18 would receive the identical check.

People that use more than their fair share of land would be paying more in rent than their land check. A farmer that leases 500 acres might pay $200 an acre or $100,000 a year to lease the land. A homeowner in the desert might rent 1/4 acre for $1 a year. A 5 acre oil lease might generate millions for the land rent pool. Fishing licenses might generate more money. 50% of all land would be preserved as wilderness, forests, and to protect wildlife. There would be no land locks like the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy might now advocate which 50% is to be preserved. An apartment dweller might not even own land but receive a land check, as a citizen. People that use less land than their fair share would receive a land check. Those that use average rent would receive nothing. If the average rent check is $800 per lot per month, if you lease a lot of $1200 a month, your net fee is $400 per month.

All oil leases, timber, fish, and minerals rights meet the George definition of land. These leases should be added to the total land rent pool, taken from the grips of government. Today one half of all homes in Palm Springs are built on leased land, farmers rent land in every farm state and most counties, and the government collects oil royalties. The switch to the new system will be rather painless. Considering Iowa as a whole, the total amount of bushels per acre and total corn produced in Iowa should increase on a land lease system as the most productive farmers would win bids for farm land.

After the lease is up the property, it is again put up for lease on by auction. After the new leaser wins the bid, the old leaser has one month to remove their property at the site. The new leaser takes control of the lot. The cycle is repeated. You can own as many lots as you want as long as you win the auction and pay the rent. Movable homes will be the new industry.

Permanent improvements of the land become part of the land as the soil. To conform to air and water quality laws you most likely would want a septic system. You could request a grant from the land lease board to install a septic system and water well. Thus you might get a check of $20,000 to install a well, tank, and septic system, but install it for $19,000 and keep the difference. If the system is expected to last 100 years you might be billed $40 per month until the lease is up. The goal is the land pool should expect to reap 100% profit on all improvements. You might also request $100,000 to build a house. If this house has a 50 year lifespan warranty, the expected rent might be $333 monthly. There are no mortgages, you must meet and pay the rent to live there. Total improvements are expected to generate profit in the land auctions. You can put a removable home on the property, to lower your cost of rent. You fail to make rent, you lose your lease. No problem you move to another area.

The city would still own the streets, the sewers, electric grid, schools, cable lines, possibly even libraries, and the fire department. However, it would be your choice to subscribe to them or not. The only mandatory fee would be for the courts, police, and defense and that would come from sin and income taxes. The streets would be owned as by the people. The roads should be built by volunteer donations. If you decided to do some work on the road it would be legal as long as it met certain standards. In order to get a permit to drive over 10 mph on roads, you might have to be responsible for 500 feet (maybe 50) of road built to ansi standards. Like adopt a road, you can build it yourself, or hire a contractor to build and maintain.

If the people own the land, do the cities, counties, states, or Federal government have any right to it. The only people entitled to free rent are the police, courts, jails, and defense. These are necessary to enforce the law and protect the people. However, when you consider a school or city park it does not meet the criteria for free rent. However schools are a choice. You have the choice to select a $1000 a month school with poor ratings or also have the choice to select a home school for $100 a month. Schools act as businesses and they should collect land rent that goes into the rent pool. City parks with grass and soccer fields should also pay rent if used for people and picnics. Libraries must pay rent. City government must bid on parcels for parks, schools, firestations, streets, and libraries. This money goes to the rent pool to be divided among each citizen equally. However, the government can not force you to use their junk. They can not put firefighting or school requirements on the property. Dams and water structures must pay a rent as the States, utilities, cities own them to provide water at economy of scale to residents of the city.

Suppose the land causes you injury or the house collapses who do you sue. It would not be possible to seek $1 in damages from the land pool. The land rent pool is sacred and no scamming or lawsuits can be taken from it. However, you could sue the homebuilder if the house is defective and causes you damage.

Ayn Rand first jobs when she came to the United States were letter stuffing and waitress. If her books did not sell, she probably would have been doing the same work for the rest of her life. However, there is no reason to live in poverty if you are doing something productive. You can really start to accumulate wealth not paying rent to government or landlords. Every person in the United States can be wealthy even a letter stuffer.

Apartment buildings, skyscrapers, golf courses, corporations would pay a maximum rent. It would be high enough such that no one would question the low rent maybe $5000 per acre a year, maybe $1000 an acre a year for golf courses as they offer some wildlife value. It is the rent where a person could lease the land permanently and the lease could be sold.

There have been complaints this system is Maoism or communism, This system does not confiscate people lands by death, it does not organize communes, it does not tell what to plant or how to plant. The rent rather than going to the land owner or government, would go to the median rent pool to be divided equally among all citizens. This would assure the people the land an the land under their feet is free unless you use too much or take the best land.

Support the median land rent system. Support a more productive use of land. Support free land under your feet.

Status:manic

I desperately want to believe that steelhouse is actually a troll... but occasionally he does make a strong case for crazy. Like when he drops a 2300 word post on us.

I think a lot of it is he thinks he's way smarter than he really is and is justifying why he has failed at life by blaming others.

Thanks for the kind words. I seek the truth. I realize I would get attacks from the public sector workers, the government, the real estate industry, and the land owners. But they are only Ad hominem attacks.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

The system is perfect the farmer gets more money, the oil company gets more money, the industrialist gets more money, the homeowner gets more money all at the expense of the above. Section 8 housing and food stamps probably could be eliminated.

yourlocigalfallasyis that there is no coherent logical argument.

Keep the feelings of persecution up though! It probably helps you think you're right.

That is right this is a new economic system to distribute land. The current system is just as crazy. There is no argument. I think it is a fairer way to distribute land. Yes, I am embarrassed at some of the potshots at unions and schools I make in the thread, but I can't edit them.

There should be a lot more that you're embarrassed about.

Suppose you own 1000 acres of farmland in Iowa. All you have to do is lease it out for $250,000 a year. You do no work, the only thing you offer is ownership.

"In short, the value of land depends entirely on the power that ownership gives to appropriate the wealth created by labor. Land value always increases at the expense of labor. The reason greater productive power does not increase wages is because it increases the value of land. Rent swallows up the whole gain. That is why poverty accompanies progress.", writes Henry George Chapter 17.

Henry George had support of the unions. The reason he claimed their wages did not come at the expense of capital, but the expense of land owners.

Still accurate.

Got another epiphany tonight. I was at a poker table with a Marine today. He was talking about his 2 tours and how he hated to see the death we caused on civilians. All this while those with a private beach in Malibu have or had zero chance of going to Iraq or Vietnam. Yet the same chickhawks here have no problem sending you to war.

Against what Ron Paul says, the volunteer armed forces should be ended. If you are a land owner, you should be required by law to register for selective service and all armed forces selected by draft with no excuses. John Dean, in one of his books listed a bunch of neocon deferments and bogus medical conditions that got them out of Vietnam, not to mention Clinton and the democrats.

Those with the best land should get extra tickets, until this system is fully implemented. Many of these volunteers only do so because they have no land and no job (or their job is not high enough to support the rents) and look to the military as a career path.

sorry if i've missed it, but is there a kickstarter page i can donate to?

That was one of the worst arguments I have read to date.

Owner of land = required military service? Are you ****ing serious? As far as I can see Mr. LogicalSteelHouse that is a non-sequitur

1st we could find all those that dodged Vietnam by going to Canada and coming back, got bogus education deferments (Clinton possibly Romney), or fake medical conditions take the sons or grandsons of those and send them to Iraq or next conflict. The run a draft for the rest. Land owners have gotten a ticket out or Vietnam and Iraq as they have the means financially not to go. By giving the landowners more tickets, they will likely not want to hold on to so much land.

"The original landholders of England got their land on terms that required them to provide military defense and meet other conditions, which amounted to a considerable part of their rent."

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm

"A smaller proportion of the people now own the land. And their ownership is much more absolute. Thirty thousand people have legal power to expel the whole population from five-sixths of the British Islands. The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their native land, except to walk the streets."

I think today common lands amount to 3% in England and much of it is national parks.

The system could have 3 different types of land.

1) land is auctioned, all the auction proceeeds go to the land rent pool.
2) land is allowed to have developments, land is auctioned and the land double the price of vacant land goes to the land rent pool. The remainder of the auction goes to the previous lease holder. Basically the home is sold by mandate and more of the proceeds go to the previous landowner.
3) permant land with improvements are allow to be bought and sold like today. however, the land rent to the rent pool is high. Thus you can have skyscrapers, golf courses and factories.

To assess the proper land rent lots should be placed in a checkerboard pattern. That way the vacant lots will get the free market auctioned rate. It may also increase rents. Some areas might have a 1/2 mile square of developments followed by 1/2 square mile where the lots are raw land with some improvements. These are the lots where the permanent home pollution does not occur on the land unless a gift.

The United States is not competitive with Asia in regards to much manufacturing. Minimum wage would be a lot of money to a factory worker across the Pacific. To regain competiveness, is not to increase the minimum wage. In the pie chart above, what is not seen are taxes and regulations.

If you end land rent and having to pay for land, the United States suddenly becomes competitve again. I have a feeling many areas of China are competitive because the rents are lower.

Only a sucker or real estate tycoon would expect someone to pay for land, permits to put something on it, or property taxes to the collective. Take away the taxes, lies, and the rents, and 1/2 the above chart goes to the black.

Quit molesting me you Obama lover.

Actually I am probably to the right of Obama these days. But if you want to QQ about economic systems at least form coherent arguments or gtfo the trolling.

So you live in a world that is not going to end private and government owned property anytime soon. What are you suppose to do? I think you should look to relocate in areas that have a lot of vacant lots then move out about 10 miles past that.

Instead of Manhattan Beach, look to Mohave or Barstow. When you get there buy a large lot and subdivide it. The more lots the less value there is in them. Even if you can afford a $1 million home, don't let the government and real estate kingpins have it. Move to a rural area and support the red state life there. Empty lots mean you are paying for the house, not the land monopoly.

It appears the California real estate cycle is:

Buy a home at the bottom of the market with low interest rates.
Pull money out as prices rise.
Go into debt until the last dime is borrowed.
Go into foreclosure and bantruptcy.
Start over.

This cycle nets trillions of tax payer and savers money for California. Try not to use u.s. dollars hold gold, especially at the top of real estate cycles.

You could also set up an intentional community that mimics the system. One large lot of 640 acres where each resident pays a rent for one acre. You could even auction the lot off, and then use the process to pay property tax and the remainder for public projects not salaries. Property tax on a large lot of vacant land should be a lot less than a small lots of permanent homes.

Attempt to lure corporations there with minimum wage workers and low rent and no taxes. The more profit a corporation has the better schools the people can afford. Thus, end all corporate tax, sales, and capital gains taxes. Look to use a local currency pegged to the dollar as a revenue source. Put the backed dollars invested in the stock market or corporate bonds to get this revenue source. Use the revenue stream to back candidates supporting the individual not the collective.

I'm going to just say your posts are complete crybaby stuff not truly worth taking a look at most of the time because your chopping ideologies up and putting them in blenders with funny results.

So you are basically advocating a 100% transient society?

No, you can still have permanent structures and you can still sell your home. But the important thing is the land is not owned by the government or private individuals. The land would be owned by the people of the United States or California or whatever geographic area you want to use. Once you come to this conclusion, everything else just automatically falls into place.

There would still be apartments, homes, mobile homes, rvs. The only thing you might see more is more non-code cool stuff. Since people own the land the government can not force you to build a certain way.

All your labor on land belongs to you. As result over time, you are going to start amassing massive wealth. Everyone even the current homeless would be more wealthy than most millionaires today.

But, you are correct there would be some transient properties, you could move to New York tomorrow then Florida, then Alaska, and then California and not pay a dime for a motel or hotel room.

I'm starting to see it.

Mao Zedong+Libertarianism=steelhouseworld