In response to my initial Post, Dan Sullivan has taken the time to write an excellent commentary “Favoring Land Value Taxation!”Once again I endeavor to “Find The Truth”, so here is his positive side on the issue: His initial Comment:
"That is exactly backwards. Land value tax decreases the burden on actual land users, particularly on owner occupants, and while increasing it on absentee landlords and corporate holdings. It gives small full-time family farms a competitive advantage over both corporate agribusiness farms and “hobby farms” held for speculation by urban professionals.It was advocated by John Locke, by the French Physiocrats who gave us the term “laissez faire,” by Adam Smith in *Wealth of Nations*, by Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Winston Churchill, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and many others. It is in place in 17 Pennsylvania taxing jurisdictions. Every one of them enjoyed increased construction and renovation after making at least a partial shift.The stuff about the royal class is also exactly backwards. The “royal class” of land monopolists already oppose this. It lightens the burden on those holding land and actually using it, and increases the burden on…“…them that join house to house,
that lay field to field, till there be no place,
that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!”It addresses the prediction of evil that,
“In mine ears said the Lord of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.”[Isaiah 5:8-9]
The stuff about Agenda 21 is also way off the mark. Land value tax is the quintessential *local* tax, because land is the one thing that does not leave when taxed locally. Land value tax advocates also advocate reducing state and federal aid to (and control of) localities, allowing the localities to rely on local land value taxes.The idea of land value tax is indeed new to many conservatives, for the socialist take-over of the left led to the abandonment of land value tax for a graduated tax on incomes, while the right has been funded by the very “royal class” of land and natural-resource monopolists against whom the author warns us. Some are frightened by what is new to them, and prone to making fretful predictions. However, it is grounded in core principles of private property in the fruits of one’s labor.
Albert Jay Nock, founder of *The Freeman* and author of *Our Enemy, the State*, wrote,“The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was [land value tax advocate] Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it almost to zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it…. One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and absolutely impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry.”
So, conservatives should indeed give this a good, close look, but a careful and honest look, suspending fearful reaction in favor of careful scrutiny. It has a great idea to offer those who are “now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them.”
He added some references for further research: Submitted on 2013/07/07 at 9:10 PM | In reply to admin. Of course I don’t mind! Thank you!
"I think I will give you too much, so your readers can pick and choose, and I will try to group them.Hmm. Videos. I’m more of a print guy, myself, because videos tend to emotionalize issues. I’m also partial to what I have written, but I will start with some videos.Here is Milton Friedman being interviewed by the National Taxpayer’s Union and calling land value tax “The ideal tax.” It is certainly the ideal *local* tax for reasons Friedman noted. However, he only talks about LVT or about a minute, at 13:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwxdyLnMXM
Here is Willam F. Buckley on C-Span. He discusses his support of land value tax at minute
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FBuc
I like this one, which is short and entirely about the justice of land value tax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sTxyNQ0ea-k
I will look for other videos, but here is a general explanation of land value tax and its advantages:
http://savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/landvalue/
Now, for scholars who want to go deeper: Libertarian capitalist Albert Jay Nock wrote several articles on land value tax. Some of them are here:
http://savingcommunities.org/docs/nock.albert/
In his own day, Henry George was accused of being a socialist, and a Father Edward McGlynn was defrocked by Pope Leo XIII based on McGlynn’s support of George’s land value tax. However, George was very religious and well studied of the bible, and wrote, *The Condition of Labour, An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII.” McGlynn was reinstated with no sanctions against advocating Georgist proposals.*The Condition of Labour* is here, but it is long. People on this list might like it because it makes its arguments entirely from a Christian perspective.
http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/THE-CONDITION-OF-LABOR.
Mazzenga, outreach librarian of Catholic University of America, gave an excellent account of the controversy between McGlynn and Archibishop Corrigan, which we did capture on video. It is long, but people can skip the first few minutes.
https://vimeo.com/48893598
That Socialists bitterly opposed this can be seen in this 1903 debate between Socialists and land value taxers, but it is also long. (We had a much longer attention span back then.)
http://www.savingcommunities.org/docs/post.louisf/debatesocialists1903.html
This is a synopsis of a book “Why is There no Socialism in the United States?” (1906) by Werner Sombart, who was the world’s most prominent socialist at the time. It’s a great description of the American personality from a grudging socialist, and it ends with the observation that Americans will never embrace socialism as long as they have access to land, but that, happily (for socialists), the land would soon be grabbed up, and the country would then embrace socialistic ideas.One of the great Socialist confusions was to confound common rights, which were individual rights, with collective rights. I wrote an essay on that, drawing heavily on George, and pointing out other Marxist errors.
http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html
I think that is enough for now. I only want to note that we get accused of being capitalists by socialists and of being socialists by capitalists. I will gladly provide more in response to specific questions that come up. The role of land value tax in the founding of the country comes to mind.
Submitted on 2013/07/07 at 9:13 PM |
In reply to Dan Sullivan.Oops. Forgot the link to Sombart.
http://savingcommunities.org/docs/sombart.werner/nosocialismus.html
Submitted on 2013/07/08 at 12:11 AM | In reply to Dan Sullivan.Also, the Buckley endorsement is at minutes 2:35 to 2:41 of the link above, repeated here. I forgot that I hadn’t posted it, and I had to listen to Buckley for the whole 2 1/2 hours to get to it. I would hate to make your readers also wade through that looking for a particular quote.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FBuc
Dan Sullivan
savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/landvalue/ x director@savingcommunities.org"
75.95.19.228
Jim Eckland
"That is exactly backwards. Land value tax decreases the burden on actual land users, particularly on owner occupants, and while increasing it on absentee landlords and corporate holdings. It gives small full-time family farms a competitive advantage over both corporate agribusiness farms and “hobby farms” held for speculation by urban professionals.It was advocated by John Locke, by the French Physiocrats who gave us the term “laissez faire,” by Adam Smith in *Wealth of Nations*, by Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Winston Churchill, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and many others. It is in place in 17 Pennsylvania taxing jurisdictions. Every one of them enjoyed increased construction and renovation after making at least a partial shift.The stuff about the royal class is also exactly backwards. The “royal class” of land monopolists already oppose this. It lightens the burden on those holding land and actually using it, and increases the burden on…“…them that join house to house,
that lay field to field, till there be no place,
that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!”It addresses the prediction of evil that,
“In mine ears said the Lord of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.”[Isaiah 5:8-9]
The stuff about Agenda 21 is also way off the mark. Land value tax is the quintessential *local* tax, because land is the one thing that does not leave when taxed locally. Land value tax advocates also advocate reducing state and federal aid to (and control of) localities, allowing the localities to rely on local land value taxes.The idea of land value tax is indeed new to many conservatives, for the socialist take-over of the left led to the abandonment of land value tax for a graduated tax on incomes, while the right has been funded by the very “royal class” of land and natural-resource monopolists against whom the author warns us. Some are frightened by what is new to them, and prone to making fretful predictions. However, it is grounded in core principles of private property in the fruits of one’s labor.
Albert Jay Nock, founder of *The Freeman* and author of *Our Enemy, the State*, wrote,“The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was [land value tax advocate] Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it almost to zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it…. One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and absolutely impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry.”
So, conservatives should indeed give this a good, close look, but a careful and honest look, suspending fearful reaction in favor of careful scrutiny. It has a great idea to offer those who are “now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them.”
He added some references for further research: Submitted on 2013/07/07 at 9:10 PM | In reply to admin. Of course I don’t mind! Thank you!
"I think I will give you too much, so your readers can pick and choose, and I will try to group them.Hmm. Videos. I’m more of a print guy, myself, because videos tend to emotionalize issues. I’m also partial to what I have written, but I will start with some videos.Here is Milton Friedman being interviewed by the National Taxpayer’s Union and calling land value tax “The ideal tax.” It is certainly the ideal *local* tax for reasons Friedman noted. However, he only talks about LVT or about a minute, at 13:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwxdyLnMXM
Here is Willam F. Buckley on C-Span. He discusses his support of land value tax at minute
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FBuc
I like this one, which is short and entirely about the justice of land value tax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sTxyNQ0ea-k
I will look for other videos, but here is a general explanation of land value tax and its advantages:
http://savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/landvalue/
Now, for scholars who want to go deeper: Libertarian capitalist Albert Jay Nock wrote several articles on land value tax. Some of them are here:
http://savingcommunities.org/docs/nock.albert/
In his own day, Henry George was accused of being a socialist, and a Father Edward McGlynn was defrocked by Pope Leo XIII based on McGlynn’s support of George’s land value tax. However, George was very religious and well studied of the bible, and wrote, *The Condition of Labour, An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII.” McGlynn was reinstated with no sanctions against advocating Georgist proposals.*The Condition of Labour* is here, but it is long. People on this list might like it because it makes its arguments entirely from a Christian perspective.
http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/THE-CONDITION-OF-LABOR.
Mazzenga, outreach librarian of Catholic University of America, gave an excellent account of the controversy between McGlynn and Archibishop Corrigan, which we did capture on video. It is long, but people can skip the first few minutes.
https://vimeo.com/48893598
That Socialists bitterly opposed this can be seen in this 1903 debate between Socialists and land value taxers, but it is also long. (We had a much longer attention span back then.)
http://www.savingcommunities.org/docs/post.louisf/debatesocialists1903.html
This is a synopsis of a book “Why is There no Socialism in the United States?” (1906) by Werner Sombart, who was the world’s most prominent socialist at the time. It’s a great description of the American personality from a grudging socialist, and it ends with the observation that Americans will never embrace socialism as long as they have access to land, but that, happily (for socialists), the land would soon be grabbed up, and the country would then embrace socialistic ideas.One of the great Socialist confusions was to confound common rights, which were individual rights, with collective rights. I wrote an essay on that, drawing heavily on George, and pointing out other Marxist errors.
http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html
I think that is enough for now. I only want to note that we get accused of being capitalists by socialists and of being socialists by capitalists. I will gladly provide more in response to specific questions that come up. The role of land value tax in the founding of the country comes to mind.
Submitted on 2013/07/07 at 9:13 PM |
In reply to Dan Sullivan.Oops. Forgot the link to Sombart.
http://savingcommunities.org/docs/sombart.werner/nosocialismus.html
Submitted on 2013/07/08 at 12:11 AM | In reply to Dan Sullivan.Also, the Buckley endorsement is at minutes 2:35 to 2:41 of the link above, repeated here. I forgot that I hadn’t posted it, and I had to listen to Buckley for the whole 2 1/2 hours to get to it. I would hate to make your readers also wade through that looking for a particular quote.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FBuc
Dan Sullivan
savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/landvalue/ x director@savingcommunities.org"
75.95.19.228
Jim Eckland