For permanent structures like golf courses, libraries, schools, apartments, would all have to pay tax. Based on my figures, if you pay $5000 (estimate) an acre to put a permanent structure on it and not have to go through auctions. A city could be considered owned by one person. Thus, all land would be accounted for and contribute to median rent.

Whole States might be below median rent. However, it makes sense as the residents must live on inferior land.

And at this point I'm pretty sure this subforum has gone to its incredibly well deserved grave. I'd say RIP but I don't really mean it.

You may not realize it but this thread is more important than Google Glass, the invention of the car, and the invention of the computer and internet combined. Basically it says individuals and governments cannot place monopoly on land (to enslave society). Why should they land is free? Improvements, take them with you. Zoning restrictions, for you not me. This thread shows both the fallacy of Henry George and Murray Rothbard regarding land. The LVT and private ownership are just another way to monopolize land.

I remember when some land from a military based closed in San Diego on Point Loma was auctioned, I think. Anyways some of the land was auctioned off to the highest bidder, say $1 million a lot. How is that fair to all the homeless that had to sit and watch government land transferred to wealthy, especially since many of them were vets?

The reality it is not land is free like air.

Possibly the most nonsensical sentence every typed. A++.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Ad Hominem. Don't waste our time.

Wasting time is the point of reading your incoherent economic theories. Comparing this thread to the invention of the car and internet, and then somehow linking google glass in at the same level of importance....just awesome.

Clipping more private equity debt coupons as we speak

I do like how STEEEEEEELHOUSE says that calling a sentence 'nonsensical' is somehow an ad-hominem attack. Nonsensical indeed.

I'm telling you... He's playing econ madlibs. Has been for years. The fact that we're still even responding to him at all makes him one of the more brilliant trolls in 2p2 history. I mean he's managed to keep trolling with a straight face for YEARS. You have to admire the dedication.

Steeeeeeeeelhooooooouse

All I see is Josey Wales and Ten-Bears

When you go into a national park or a national forest campground, you are limited to the amount of days you may stay. Imagine if you could stay 1 year and you started building a cabin on the forest lot. 2 years you put in a driveway. When you leave, do you expect payment?

Then you say after 5 years, this land is mine, so you sell the campground site to someone else. Before you know it the whole national park is full of houses people are trading. There are no raw lots anymore, all the land is taken.

=====

So you live in a town with Walmarts, Mcdonalds, TJMaxx, and Mobil. Suppose there is a Nordstrom, Dillards, Sears, and Home Depot. imagine this town with beautiful Victorian houses with orange trees lining the street. Imagine this town on beautiful paved roads. Now imagine this town with dirt roads. Would the value of homes really drop that much? People live in cities mainly for the population and businesses of it. Should we tax real estate and give it to businesses? No, they are taxed too to support the $100,000 city union jobs.

Ayn Rand 1st 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.

If you choose a lot in the country, with no well or septic, you most likely would be receiving a median rent check for using a substandard piece of property. Suppose the check is $300 a month. Since the well and septic could be used for over 20 years, 20 years time $100 a month is $24,000. You could get a grant from the median rent board to install a well and septic for $10,000 each or $20,000. You shop around and get them installed for $19,000 and keep the $1,000 and it is approved by the median rent committee. You agree to pay the $100 a month extra in rent for the septic and well, for your 5 year lease. However, you are still receiving $200 a month to be used to pay for roads, firefighters, directv, or libraries a choice to you.

So to end the story, you can really start to accumulate wealth not paying rent to government or landlords. Wealth is not overprinted paper dollars, but steel, gold, silver, tin, wood, and copper bars. Every person in the United States can be wealthy, even a letter stuffer.

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. Now I propose 50% of all land be used in national parks and forests to protect the wildlife which would not go to rent. However schools are a choice. You have the choice to select a $1000 a month school with unionized teachers and poor grades or also have the choice to select a home or community school for $100 a month. Schools act as businesses and they should collect 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, and libraries. This money goes to the rent pool to be divided among each citizen of the United States equally.

All farmland would be owned by the public. Thus to farm you would be leasing land from auction, with the rent going to the rent pool. Oil and gas leases, forest leases, and mining leases would all go to the rent pool. Apartment buildings would pay a maximum rent and it would be possible most of the residents would be collecting a median rent check, yet own no property leases. Dams and water structures must pay a rent as the cities own them to provide water at economy of scale to residents of the city. I don't think you can collect rent from roads as they are used to travel the countryside, unless they are too large.

Steelhouse,

Did you attend a public high school or college/university, earn bad grades and are now blaming someone else for "poor grades"?

Cliffs:

Suppose I make up a set up numbers out of thin air with no basis at all in reality. Now suppose I make up a second set of numbers lower than the first one. Clearly you are better off under the first system.

Also Mao Zedong's land policies were awesome and deserve a second chance

"This has nothing to do with his land policies. Mao called for the Chinese peasants to be organized into communes. This, in effect, took away the land that had been distributed to the peasants in the years immediately after 1949. The peasants had been urged to confiscate the lands of the landowners and distribute it to the peasants that farmed it. This land distribution program was extremely popular with the peasants and contributed to their support of Mao's Communist Party. But the peasants had the land for less that ten years before the State took it away from them.

First, peasants were organized into cooperatives of 20 to 40 families. This was at the village level. Next the cooperatives were replaced by county-wide collectives involving hundreds of thousands of people. In addition to calling for the creation of communes Mao urged the peasants to build backyard blastfurnaces to make iron and steel for tools. The peasants were supposed to melt down scrap metal to make useful items such as tools and utensils. In practice the program worked backwards with peasants melting down useful items to produce unusable masses of metal. This happened because the State exhorted the peasants to increase production from the backyard blast furnaces and when they ran out of scrap they started melting down anything they could find, including tools and utensils. Some of this destruction of useful objects to increase the production from the backyard blastfurnaces might be attributed to enthusiasm but probably more of it was due to there being quotas of production from the furnaces that had to be met. Communist leaders at the local level faced with possible personal punishment for not meeting the quota or destruction of useful items of metal and of wood for fuel usually would choose to try to meet the quota. But the mixture of metals and the impurities in the fuel produced metal that could not be formed into anything useful. The metal was too brittle.

The more incidious consequence of the backyard blastfurnaces and other nonagricultural projects of the Great Leap Forward was that they took labor away from food production and led to a shortfall in food. China was, as always in recent history, on the edge of subsistence and any decrease in food production means privation if not starvation.

To make matters worse the centralized control resulted in no one with the authority to change things being informed of the decline in food production. The commune leaders were under pressure to exceed past production and when production declined they did report it. They, in fact, reported what the higher authorities wanted to hear. Thus the policy errors that were leading to food shortfalls went on beyond the point when anyone could do anything about them. The central government made things even worse for the peasants by taking a share based upon the falsified production figures and thus leaving the peasants too little to survive on.

In addition to the decline in food production due to the diversion of effort away from agriculture there was losses in food production because of the erroneous policies promoted by the State. One of these idiocies was close planting. If two plants are set too close to each other there is not enough nutrients in the soil to feed both and both die. The State promoted close planting of grain to increase productivity. The initial growth of a plant derives from the nutrient stored in the seed itself. With close planting the initial germination produces spectacular results, but when the growth of the plant has to depend upon nutrients drawn from the soil the close planting produces failures. During the Great Leap Forward there developed a competition for creating the most striking demonstrations of close planting. The record was probably the case which produced a famous photograph of children standing on top of a wheat field that could hold their weight. Jasper Becker, in his history of the Great Leap Forward era Hungry Ghosts tells that an interviewee told him that the picture was faked. There was a bench hidden in the wheat below the children's feet that supported them.

Jasper Becker in Hungry Ghosts traces the foolishness of close planting to the fraudulent science of the Soviet Union. T.D. Lysenko was a quack who got the support of Joseph Stalin and ruled over Soviet genetics for twenty five years. Among the many erroneous notions promoted by Lysenko and which had to be accepted in Marxist countries was his "law of the life of species" which said that plants of the same species do not compete with each other but instead help each other to survive. This was linked to the Marxist notion of classes in which members of the same class do not compete but instead help each other survive. So Marxist ideology seemed to support the notion that the denser grain was planted the better it was for the grain. But in reality this close planting led to whithering of the plants after the initial germination phase. Lysenko was responsible for many other foolish notions most based upon the precept that environment not genetics determine plant characteristics. Lysenko argued that if you grew plants a little farther north each year they would adapt to the climate and eventually you would be able to grow oranges in the arctic. All of the Lysenko nonsense had to accepted in the Soviet Union and promoted in propaganda as scientific truth. The Marxists in China apparently believed it was the truth. The reality was that this nonsense resulted in less production of food under conditions of bare survival." http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/greatleap.htm

===============

Under a land rental system, only the most productive farmers will win bids to farm lands. Land is already rented to farmers in fact rents have gone up from $176 per acre in 2008 to $252 per acre in 2012 in Iowa. Farmland is rented in all farming states already. The farmer is not told how to farm, what to farm (generally). I would think a rented acre would be much more productive than a owned and planted acre.

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 as oppose to the LVT (Land Value Tax), would assure the people own the land an the land under their feet is free unless you use too much or take the best land.

Many Hollywood celebrities would be able to rent ocean front properties than they do today due to the opening of land and parcels bought decades ago. Rents and lot size would adjust to more optimal use.

You don't have an actual coherent system, don't overthink the comparison.

In summary Mao murdered landowners to control the land. Eventually he put land into communes and dictated how to and what to farm top down. No wonder they had problems Keynes-ism does not work.

Under this system, the actual cost to rent an acre of farmland should drop as there would be more rentable cropland. The production on the farms should increase as competent farmers would win bids and still earn a profit. Furthermore it would provide a means for a farmer to retire.

The only problem are the fruit trees, and it may take 20 years for a fruit tree to mature. There are some people that live mainly on fruit. Fruitarians claim it is the only food you need to eat.

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then they try an ban or limit you. Then you win.' - Mohandas Gandhi

Yes. The fruit trees. That's the only problem. Clearly.

Am I the only person who saw that steelhouse was comparing himself to Ghandi in that last post and laughed incredibly hard?

Steelhouse you are undoubtedly the king of the trolls. I'd like to meet you irl someday. You have to have a wicked sense of humor.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

Didnt even address that because, well, what to say to that?

The bolded is definitely true, if steelhouse is an act he wins the internet.

Fruit trees can be solved by requiring a certain amount of new trees be planted. Thus when the new lease takes over they are required to plant a certain amount of trees. Or the initial plant is done as an expense to future rents.

All the other problems for the most part actually make the current system easier. You have a way to retire. You have a way to property without a job. You have a way to avoid the real estate transfer and broker fees. People already lease homes, farms, forest, orchards, so the transition would be easy. Save the average working poor family tons of money at the expense of real estate tycoons and city elite,

The problem of allowing high quality homes, could be allowed if the home is given say a 100 year lifespan before mandatory demolition. Thus a $300,000 home could be gotten for $300 in additional rent a month. This would be more inline with Georges LVT, however most importantly the LVT goes to the people as oppose to the city.

Problems are really few and thin.

After reading a couple of hundred steelhouse posts I'm 100% certain he is either

1) Schizophrenic or 2) the most amazing internet winning troll of all time.

The occasional comic genius of his posts makes me think 2) more and more.