The Best Tax is a Tax on Land and Some of that Revenue should be Divided Equally to all Citizens

It has likewise been an absolute pleasure debating with an opponent who takes his subject matter so seriously, and given that it is in fact such an important matter, I have found Pro's style to be adroit, responsible, and heartfelt. Be that as it may I continue to submit that despite this he has failed to convince me that his proposition is either functional or moral. "The equation might be more accurate as land + labor + (coefficient of entrepreneurialism) = capital, but that coefficient could easily be zero" I agree with Pro that entrepreneurship should be treated as a coefficient but not according to his definition of a coefficient. A coefficient is properly defined as “a number by which another number or symbol is multiplied” www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/coefficient According to my formulation where C is capital, l is labor, r is natural resource and e is entrepreneurship, we might better get C as follows: C = e(l + r); or C = el + er Now if e = 0 then C = 0 irrespective of the values of land or labor, capital will remain 0. Let me illustrate this a bit better with an example from history, concerning the American Indians prior to the arrival of the pestilential Europeans. They had all the r and buckets more in the form of oil as you have in the US today, and they had teepees crammed with l, and yet without the e supplied by the Europeans, C in form of extracted value or oil (or as Locke would say augmented value) remained where it would without this coefficient e, beneath the ground and undiscovered. This land or r becomes worth more as a direct result of the entrance onto the scene of e. Thus e as supplied by a certain individual or group is directly responsible for the increase in value of a site (or potential for C) due to the recognition of the existence of r on that site. In addition to this Pro has not demonstrated why r cannot be owned by an individual while simultaneously being able to be owned by many individuals. Surely anything that is ‘owned’ by the community is in fact ‘owned’ by no one, since the word itself denotes possession as apart from others. “If a landowner builds a tourist attraction that brings in lots of money, his/her own land value will go up…” Surely Pro doesn’t mean to say that the tourist attraction (in the form of property) will increase the value of the land, since this is tantamount to property tax…. and according to Pro… “Property tax is perhaps the worst of all [taxes]” He therefore makes my point that, in the form of a syllogism: P1 - The value of a property is determined by the value of the construction on the land or the special use to which the land is put. (eg. tourist attraction) P2 - It is impossible to accurately distinguish the value of a site without taking it’s property or use into account. (as argued by Con and confirmed by Pro) C1 - Therefore LVT is a form property tax (P1 & P2) Then it follows that…since P1’ - Property tax is perhaps the worst of all taxes (agreed by Pro & Con) P2’ - LVT is a form of property tax (per C1 above) C2 - LVT is one of the worst of all taxes. (P1’ & P2’) This was what I set out to demonstrate during this debate. “With a 95% site tax, she would still be able to sell it and $500K. ” This should be…“With a 95% site tax, she would have NO option but to sell it and less than market price to avoid paying her next tax bill” I will give you reader two guesses as to who will be waiting with baited breath for tax induced bargain. If it’s not the corporate mining speculator it’s someone else who specializes in such snappy tax induced opportunities. “That’s how sites are valued- the market” Pro does not see that his LVT will destroy the very market it is dependant on, thus sawing the branch on which perches. “It appears Con is self-contradicting. In a previous post , the argument was that if someone finds oil under their land, the value of the oil belongs to him/her” I believe this is what Pro would like me to be saying, but in fact I say that, the increase in the value of the land is due to the action of discovery and as such is a consequence of the action of mixing ones mental labour (augmentation) with the land, and thereby according to Locke’s formulation, making the entire land a part of me (possessing it/owning it outright). I say no such thing as Pro will have me say…that only the surplus value redounds to my efforts. “Now Con’s argument appears to be that if someone finds gold underneath a property, the owner is entitled to the value of the gold’s value” Again this is not (entirely) what I have been saying, as clarified above. I have been thoroughly consistent with my argument that while I agree the value of the gold I ‘found’ (as if one simply trips over such fortune) belongs to me, so does the land I ‘augmented’ by extracting it. So on making discovery that uses some natural resource, such as the synthesis of two chemicals to cure some disease, I should wait in anticipation for some government bureaucrat to hand me a bill for my efforts? “Con is ignoring the fact that it would reduce EVERYONE’s site value” In world of LVT you would praise the sewage tycoon for moving to your area and curse the ‘owner’ of a tourist attraction. Again I will leave it the reader to see how low valued sites will develop into ‘zones’ for unfortunate poor…slums. Pro has unfortunately built his argument on a strategy where the most productive amongst us, those who are most efficient at utilizing resources are penalized at the epicenter, while sending penalty shockwaves to all his/her less fortunate neighbors. This in addition to rewarding those who had no part to play in the benefits drawn from the aforementioned’s efforts. “It appears Con’s definition of freedom is being able to ignore economic incentives. If that’s the case, communism is freedom. “ My concept of freedom involves leaving people to act on or ignore economic forces as they see fit as rational individuals. Pro calls LVT an economic incentive, but this seems to be a kind of newspeak for an economic constraint. LVT is an artificially contrived economic force and as anyone involved in economics knows it has its own version of entropy or thermodynamic equilibrium. The distinguishing features of a free market economy is that it is an economy due to there being a market, and that the market is as free as possible from artificially imposed forces or central planning. Read the opposite as communism, where it cannot really be said constitute an economy as markets are controlled and freedom is non-existent. Central planning is central planning even when it dresses up in market garb. “Slums=absentee landlords. ” No, Slums = maximise profit with minimal improvement to land. “If one has the right to the product of one’s labor, one must have a place to labor. “ No one is disputing this, but surely to ‘have’ implies ownership? As stated above one cannot be said to own something and pay rent on it at the same time. The state is certain not the ideal candidate for providing this place, as opposed to say…McDonald’s. North Korea supplies many ‘places’ for people to ‘labor’, and if ‘labor’ is ever to have an extreme meaning it applies to the description of what North Koreans do. “If one is not allowed a place to labor, one is not allowed to labor. ” The free market ‘allows’ everyone such a place, provided it is NOT ‘gained’ by thievery or coercion. This is in contrast to North Korea where the whole expanse of the country is ‘owned’ by everyone and represents a great range of places to labor. “If one is not allowed to labor, one does not have the right to the products of one’s labor. ” No one prevents North Koreans from laboring, and since their labor is not augmented to land as ownership they get to be equal shareholders in the whole of their country. I can’t say this is an economic incentive I’d go for. “…existing is a right. ” Arguing for a right to exist seems to me to be a claim about metaphysics, so I won’t pursue this any further. Here is how I sum up the main arguments Pro’s contention that land value can be separated from property value independent of property is simply erroneous as the assumptions made to achieve this in as far as it is done today, rely on a functioning market, accumulated property on the land area in question and no LVT effects. Should LVT be implemented I believe it would directly and materially distort this market to such an extent that the proper operation of this market would cease. Pro maintains that he is not arguing for government owned or controlled land, just rental. I submit that this is an erroneous and naïve contention. Land that requires constant payment, which is prone to fluctuations is no different to having a lifelong mortgage and is therefore not ownership. This opens are new can of worms when you consider that the state then has the ability to pass legislation surrounding rates and in my view would soon become prone to being used for vote buying. Pro’s contention that land cannot be owned by an individual but can be owned by the collective is an unjustified and meaningless assertion and thus holds no position as the grounds for his further argument. I have not spent any time discussing the morality of redistribution as it pertains to CD as I believe that redistribution of ill-gotten gains is immoral even if applied to the best possible cause.