patrick.net

pkowen says

CA Prop 13 created an exception that only resets the value (mass appraisal is automatically recalculated periodically) when there is a transfer of ownership. This results in long time owners having suppressed property valuations, and new buyers often pay many times more.

That's because the government can get away with taxing new owners more as they are on the rising income phase of their lives, so it does. It would be erroneous to think that somehow tax is artificially suppressed on a few long term owners; most residents in an established residential area benefit from Prop-13. Prop-13 is simply a way of getting away with taxing new owners more than can be born by people who already live in an area. If you want to talk about "rent-seeking," monopolistic government bureaucrats are the ultimate Rent seekers. It is only fair to assume that they charge as much as they can get away with (individual benevalence among young and inexperienced bureaucrats not withstanding).

Georgism simply recognizes that the earth / land is more permanent than we are;

Yet, just a few moments later, you were writing about a developer running up the value of his land due to his own improvements (a very accurate assessment, I should add). So it is quite obvious that land value is inseparable from human labor / improvement, contrary to the idealized unicorn idea about "land" as separate from improvements.

that we all take resources from it (water, food, fuel), and in exchange rather than "owning" the land and mineral rights, we "rent" them form the rest of society.

1. If it is renting from the rest of the society, why should the rent be paid to the bureaucrats? instead of say having the benefit paid to the renters through competitive rent reduction? This point was very well understood in the 19th century America: new land was Given to pioneering farmers, instead of being auctioned to them (with proceeds going to the government like today's wireless spectrums), so that farmers would be able to sell farm products to the rest of the society cheaper in the absence of debt to pay the auction proceeds.

2. Any mineral or material that you take from the earth is also made unavailable to others. All material, take for example all iron ore, on this planet is finite. What you take is made unavailable to others. So hold your cell phone in your hand, why do you own it at all? Why do you have private property ownership over any material object at all? Shouldn't you be paying a 100% use value tax on all the material going into your phone? That's the essence of Georgist logic. There is a rebuttal to this logical fallacy, but it requires you to see through the unicorn idea of government bureaucrats representing the society (it's the same as Europeans having to separate paying the Priesthood from paying homage to God before they could come out from under the sway of the monopolistic church).

It reduces "rent seeking" and therefore would lower rents.

That's just completely wrong. Any raise in taxes would raise rent not reducing them. We see that clearly in Prop-13 protected landlords being able to rent to tenants for much lower price than the monthly cost of buying the same house. Rental market is very competitive, but they only compete on the portion of rent that the "landlords" charge, not on the Rent (aka "tax")that their own Landlord the government charges them across board.

There is one scenario where LVT could drive down rent in theory: 100% LVT reducing land rent to zero! so LVT tax is Zero as well. However, that tax-free state of existence probably won't last long before government bureaucrats insist that land has some kind of taxable value even if the transaction value of land is zero as all income from land is taxed at 100%. In any case, both standard Georgist Single-Tax proposal and the bastardized version pushed by people who not even bothering to read him push for the tax on land to go up not to go down, and to go up substantially.

It also has been proposed along with a complete removal of "income" taxes, since income tax takes from the work of your hands and mind - things that are eminently more "yours" than a piece of land you happened to squat on first.

I do not want to come across as legitimizing income tax . . . however, I doubt you'd feel any better if the government takes what you have already owned for a long time instead of taking a cut from your new income. . . especially if you do not have the income means to replace what is to be taken. The "squat" description is silly considering you wrote a few moments later that the developer was increasing his own taxable land value through improvement. Improvement and land are inseparable, which utterly destroys the unicorn idea about land being God-given that started the entire Georgist argument to begin with.

To summarize, Georgism has two fundamental problems:

1. Unlike what many people intuitively feel about the subject, land is not God-given, but intricately intermixed with human effort improving what had been "raw land" (or swamp under water or cliff side before leveling, etc.). It's impossible to separate land value from past improvement even if the house is demolished. Henry George eventually had to re-define Georgist "Land" as "raw land" plus whatever improvements have been made by improvers who have already passed away. Once that point is understood (i.e. read and digested), many wannabe Georgists probably would have second thoughts about the whole Georgist idea.

2. Henry George lived during a time when modern interventionist government was just starting to emerge. People confused "the government" with "the people" or "the society." The rise of even more virulent statist ideologies were soon to follow after Henry George's death. It's a logical fallacy to assume that accruing all economic advantages to the monopolistic government bureaucracy would be beneficial to the society. It is far better off to let Apple and HP own all the material content that go into their electronic devices, and let consumers make choice between them (and among many other competitors), than say requiring all the device makers and owners to pay the government a tax amounting to the entire use value of all the material content . . . despite the fact that all the material and mineral are finite; what you "own" can not be owned by someone else at the same time.

So why is private ownership better than "public" ownership (paying a substantial rent/tax to government is "public" ownership) on limited resources? Because limited resources has to be allocated efficiently . . . and the competitive market process is much more efficient in sending the limited resources to where it is most urgently needed than monopolistic bureaucratic political machination. A far better way to contribute to the society than paying additional taxes is to provide a useful service to other members of the society that the recipient value more than the input factors (i.e. you can turn a profit from providing that service). Taxes only get in the way of this efficient market exchange process. e.g. having a $100 annual "material use tax" on the iPad would only cause the cost of using iPad to go up and hinder the public accessibility to the valuable device; after taking out $90 to feed the bureaucracy, the government may well give the remaining $10 to HP's WebOS tablet despite clear consumer choice in favor of iPad.

Bellingham Bob says

I just look at what we have now and see a very clear cause of some of the poverty around today. Henry George saw the same thing 150 years ago in California's pioneer time, which is why his book is called "Progress and Poverty".

Yet, you refuse to read the book, at least not in detail. Otherwise, you would have noticed that even Henry George ran into the problem of separating land from improvement, and had to draw the arbitrary line that improvements lasting beyond the life of the improver is defined as "Land" in Georgism. i.e. good luck trying to figure out whether the person who did improvement and sold the property to the man who sold you the property is still alive! If you find the guy, will you try to keep him "alive" like "Bernie" in order to prevent tax from going up dramatically? LOL. When put that way, I doubt even you would want to call yourself Georgist.

There are a multitude of issues with community collection of ground rent, leasing vs. owning, etc. I don't pretend to have any answers to these things.

The most straightforward way to benefit the community is actually let the landlord pass the benefit of landownership onto tenants via competitive rent pricing. . . just like the private ownership of material without "material use tax" allow manufacturers compete on the price of their bundled goods, bidding prices downward and making goods and services available to consumers. Almost all raw material that go into manufactured goods are finite on this planet and "God-given," just like the abstract concept "land," and they are inseparably intermixed with human labor "improvement" just like typical rentable houses sitting on improved land.

It's the flows that are the problem now. Maybe a trillion from land (tenants to landowners or bankers). A trillion to the military machine. $600B via the trade deficit. A trillion in rents being taken in the health sector.

These rent-captures are why the top 1% is collecting so much of the national income today, and why a $5T+ total government expense is only employing twenty million people or so.

Then why are you advocating even more concentration of wealth into the hands of the same Rend-seeking monopoly that is called the government, owned and controlled by the ultra rich?

If you want to reduce rent-seeking, the proper solution should be reducing tax and licensing/regulatory burdens, so more new entrants can enter the market and bid prices down and make goods and services more readily available to consumers.

Reality says

Then why are you advocating even more concentration of wealth into the hands of the same Rend-seeking monopoly that is called the government, owned and controlled by the ultra rich?
If you want to reduce rent-seeking, the proper solution should be reducing tax and licensing/regulatory burdens, so more new entrants can enter the market and bid prices down and make goods and services more readily available to consumers.

It seems to me that you are confusing two separate issues:

1. The size of government
2. The proper method of collecting taxes

Given that taxes are necessary to fund the government (whatever the size), the question is what is the best way to collect taxes that will facilitate a healthy economy.

I'm not necessarily a true believer in Georgism like Troy/Bob, but I think the idea is interesting. Your main argument appears to be that it's not perfect (it's difficult to separate land and improvements). This may come as a shock, but no tax plan is perfect. Is it better than the alternatives?

tatupu70 says

It seems to me that you are confusing two separate issues:

1. The size of government
2. The proper method of collecting taxes

Given that taxes are necessary to fund the government (whatever the size), the question is what is the best way to collect taxes that will facilitate a healthy economy.

Be honest, are you really talking about holding total tax amount steady or finding another tax revenue? What will you do with all the IRS agents already trained to collect an entirely different form of tax?

Besides, any substantial LVT would crash land value, and reduce LVT tax value dramatically . . . will you really be content with that? as opposed to then having to bureaucratically assign land value without much reference to market price? leading to chaos in the land market place as many plots would be abandoned due to too high tax just like houses in Detroit and Baltimore.

I'm not necessarily a true believer in Georgism like Troy/Bob, but I think the idea is interesting. Your main argument appears to be that it's not perfect (it's difficult to separate land and improvements). This may come as a shock, but no tax plan is perfect. Is it better than the alternatives?

It's far worse than being imperfect. It's akin to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire itself. Troy/Bob's primary motive has nothing to do with fairness or equitability, but everything to do with the gutteral feeling that his landlord is charging him too much. Heck, he has no qualms about becoming a rent-seeking landlord if only he had the money (I don't think small time landlords really enjoy monopolistic economic Rent, but he does). Talk about amoralistic hypocracy! What I'm trying to point out is that a higher tax on land+house (as any Single Tax to replace other taxes must be) would only drive up rent cost not reducing it. In other words, it would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire itself!

Just like doctors enjoy a "rent" as licensed practioner, Levvying a special high tax on the income difference between a doctor vs. a minimum wage burger flipper would not reduce the cost of seeing the doctor but only increase it!

Reality says

Besides, any substantial LVT would crash land value

Reality says

What I'm trying to point out is that a higher tax on land+house (as any Single Tax to replace other taxes must be) would only drive up rent cost not reducing it

Which is it?

I'm not sure it would have much effect on rents or home prices. If, as Troy/Bob says, all excess money goes into rents and land values, then it's really the total tax bill that matters. Whether it's income tax or LVT or Fair tax or whatever. It's take home pays that matters.

And you make the same mistake that I see here all the time. Just because Troy would like to profit from the current rules doesn't mean that he wouldn't like them to change. That's not hypocritical.

Reality says

Just like doctors enjoy a "rent" as licensed practioner, Levvying a special high tax on the income difference between a doctor vs. a minimum wage burger flipper would not reduce the cost of seeing the doctor but only increase it!

That's just wrong.

tatupu70 says

Which is it?

Both! Land value would crash as the landlord's after-tax income will decrease after paying the substantial tax . . . and rent will go up as the tenants will have to pay the landlords what will get passed onto the bigger Landlord the government. What do you think a 50% sales tax would do? Merchants would be devastated, and the customers would be paying much more out of pocket. That's what all Taxes do: put a "negative bridge" and "negative railroad" between the two parties.

I'm not sure it would have much effect on rents or home prices. If, as Troy/Bob says, all excess money goes into rents and land values, then it's really the total tax bill that matters. Whether it's income tax or LVT or Fair tax or whatever. It's take home pays that matters.

The assumption is wrong, as usual. Not all excess money go into rents or land values. How else would renters pay for vacations, toys and eventually down payment for houses? Not everyone lives paycheck to paycheck . . . in fact, for the crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck, there's an even stronger rationale for having a landlord when the roof leaks!

LVT as Single Tax would have a huge impact on the value of improvement vs. "land," and the exact impact would depend on how the arbitrary formula is put together in assigning value. It's a fallacy to argue that substantial LVT won't have much of an effect on life and argue that it would be economic positive for producers (as Georgists do) at the same time.

And you make the same mistake that I see here all the time. Just because Troy would like to profit from the current rules doesn't mean that he wouldn't like them to change. That's not hypocritical.

Of course that's hypocritical when he considers what landlords do as immoral. He is not merely making an economic argument against landlords, but also a moral diatribe.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Just like doctors enjoy a "rent" as licensed practioner, Levvying a special high tax on the income difference between a doctor vs. a minimum wage burger flipper would not reduce the cost of seeing the doctor but only increase it!

That's just wrong.

What's wrong? Is basic economic literacy really that hard to come by nowadays? If sales tax is raised to 50%, do you think merchants would drop price on all merchandise by 50%?

Reality says

Not all excess money go into rents or land values. How else would renters pay for vacations, toys and eventually down payment for houses?

Of course people take vacations and buy toys and save. But the theory is that there is a certain fixed percentage of income that goes towards housing. If you look at housing prices over time-they follow wage inflation pretty closely. Of course it's not exact--but it's a decent rule.

And I see no reason to think that would change just becuase you are shifting where the taxes are coming from.

Reality says

It's a fallacy to argue that substantial LVT won't have much of an effect on life and argue that it would be economic positive for producers (as Georgists do) at the same time.

I think the argument is that it would have a an effect on life--but that it would be a positive one.

I'll get out of the way now. I'm not an expert by any means on this topic.

Reality says

What's wrong? Is basic economic literacy really that hard to come by nowadays? If sales tax is raised to 50%, do you think merchants would drop price on all merchandise by 50%?

No, but you weren't talking about a sales tax.

tatupu70 says

Of course people take vacations and buy toys and save. But the theory is that there is a certain fixed percentage of income that goes towards housing. If you look at housing prices over time-they follow wage inflation pretty closely. Of course it's not exact--but it's a decent rule.

That's certainly not correct. You may be looking at graphs with too coarse granuality. Housing prices are highly dependent on interest rates.

And I see no reason to think that would change just becuase you are shifting where the taxes are coming from.

If you are talking about per centage of income going into housing, that's a function of lending rules. When rules are relaxed, a far higher percentage of income can go into paying for a house, and vice versa.

The majority of homes are owned/mortgaged not rented, therefore the dominant factor in what per centage of income going into housing is dependent on the lending environment. If you are looking at old data or coarse data that give very little space to the last decade, then you would of course see consistency before the past decade as the lending standards had been in place for several decades.

Rent as per centage of income is not at all consistent, either in this country or across different countries.

I think the argument is that it would have a an effect on life--but that it would be a positive one.

Not when the Georgists can't even figure out what "land" is . . . not when they can't even see the consequences on land value their proposed high LVT would have. It's laughable to read someone writing about $5million/acre all long the California coast would retain that high valuation if tax is raised from about $50k/yr to $150k/yr. Open your map, and see for yourself the difference between the towns with 3% property tax rate vs. those with 1% property tax rate. The difference is night and day!

tatupu70 says

No, but you weren't talking about a sales tax.

A substantial LVT is a high sales tax: on the rental service. A substantial tax on the income of the doctor is also a sales tax: on the medical service (which does enjoy some economic Rent in pricing as result of state licensing restricting supply; coupled with government subsidy and insurance, people tend not to shop around as much when they sign up with a doctor vs. house hunting)

Reality says

Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "arbitrary."

Indeed, mine is from a dictionary. Yours is whatever mangled logic it takes to continue your opinionated and confused rants.

Reality says

That's certainly not correct. You may be looking at graphs with too coarse granuality. Housing prices are highly dependent on interest rates.

Actually they are not. If you look at nominal housing prices vs. interest rates, the correlation is very weak to non-existent.

Reality says

A substantial tax on the income of the doctor is also a sales tax: on the medical service

Come on. An income tax is an income tax. A sales tax is a sales tax.

If the government put a tax on every medical procedure or office visit, that would be a sales tax.

pkowen says

Reality says

Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "arbitrary."

Indeed, mine is from a dictionary. Yours is whatever mangled logic it takes to continue your opinionated and confused rants.

No, to me, valuation has to be somewhat reflective of market reality . . . not some number pulled out of some academic's ass because they had a convention somewhere, like in the former Soviet Union.

To me, valuation deviation form market reality is "arbitrary."

tatupu70 says

Actually they are not. If you look at nominal housing prices vs. interest rates, the correlation is very weak to non-existent.

Which time period are you talking about? Are you factoring in real cost of borrowing? (accounting for both inflation and borrower qualification)

tatupu70 says

Come on. An income tax is an income tax. A sales tax is a sales tax.

If the government put a tax on every medical procedure or office visit, that would be a sales tax.

Yes, that's what I meant for the doctor's income from providing licensed medical service over what he'd make if he had gone flipping burgers. The portion of income that enjoys economic Rent. He can go flip burger and generate extra income if he wishes without facing that extra tax.

delete

; edit error

Reality says

tatupu70 says

Actually they are not. If you look at nominal housing prices vs. interest rates, the correlation is very weak to non-existent.

Which time period are you talking about? Are you factoring in real cost of borrowing? (accounting for both inflation and borrower qualification)

I'm talking about over 100 years. Nominal housing prices vs. interest rates.

tatupu70 says

I'm talking about over 100 years. Nominal housing prices vs. interest rates.

Like I suspected, the granuality is too coarse. The 100yrs also covered very different market conditions, spanning 3 different monetary regimes, with drastically different inflation rates. 10% nominal interest rate is very high if inflation rate is 0, but very low if inflation rate is 10%

A house (+land) is a capitalized asset, just like any other capitalized asset. The valuation is based on discounting future stream of income. (Expected) Real interest provide the discount rate, and tax affects the magnitude of that income stream.

Reality says

tatupu70 says

I'm talking about over 100 years. Nominal housing prices vs. interest rates.

Like I suspected, the granuality is too coarse. The 100yrs also covered very different market conditions, spanning 3 different monetary regimes, with drastically different inflation rates. 10% nominal interest rate is very high if inflation rate is 0, but very low if inflation rate is 10%

Oh, so the correlation only exists under certain conditions then? That's ridiculous. If interest rates affected prices, you'd be able to tell with the r2 value.

tatupu70 says

Oh, so the correlation only exists under certain conditions then? That's ridiculous. If interest rates affected prices, you'd be able to tell with the r2 value.

Have you ever tried to buy a house? Tell me interest rate doesn't affect your decision on price.

Why do you think GSE's like FNM and FRE exist if interest rate has nothing to do with price?

Reality says

Have you ever tried to buy a house? Tell me interest rate doesn't affect your decision on price.
Why do you think GSE's like FNM and FRE exist if interest rate has nothing to do with price?

Hey-the data doesn't lie. Interest rate effects are in the noise. They are drowned out by the effect of the overall economy.

tatupu70 says

Hey-the data doesn't lie. Interest rate effects are in the noise. They are drowned out by the effect of the overall economy.

Yes they do, when you do not look closely at what the real borrowing cost was during those years.

BTW, just to make sure we are on the same page, by "housing price" you do mean price of buying houses (and land below them), right? Not cost of renting a roof over one's head. Rent is not interest-dependent, and I addressed that separately earlier.

Reality says

Yes they do, when you do not look closely at what the real borrowing cost was during those years.

So, do I have this right? Your position is: data be damned. I say it so it is true.

OK--you win.

tatupu70 says

So, do I have this right? Your position is: data be damned. I say it so it is true.

OK--you win.

Not at all. You have to look closely at what the real meaning of the data is, lest you fall for the old saying "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Reality says

as opposed to then having to bureaucratically assign land value without much reference to market price

An elegant solution to finding the "right" land value tax is just to have public bidding on it for every land sale.

Whoever agrees to pay the highest tax gets the land.

Tax hikes for that owner after the auction are limited in a Prop 13 kind of way, say 2% per year, with very strict re-auctioning required upon the death of the owner (none of this perpetual family tax rate bullshit like we have in CA) or every 10 or 20 years in the case of businesses, which don't necessarily die.

This solution was suggested to me by Ingo Bischoff of the Economic Club of San Francisco.

I like it.

tatupu70 says

. If you look at nominal housing prices vs. interest rates, the correlation is very weak to non-existent.

This is on the macro scale, where interest rate policy is used to dampen wage inflation.

Ceteris paribus -- when wages are otherwise flat -- I fail to see how its controversial to assert that "housing prices are dependent on interest rates".

Of course, complicating things is that rising housing prices become a form of income via home equity extraction.

Here's a chart demonstrating the interest rate - price lock of 2000-2004:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1Mi

The blue line is 30 year mortgage rate indexed at 100 on 2000/1/1.

The red line is Case Shiller indexed at 100 on 2000/1/1, inverted (down is higher) and renormalized back to 100 by adding 200.

From 2000-2004 you can see home prices tracking lower interest rates directly.

that was the boom. In 2004-2006, I would argue that we saw the bubble, with negative am, liar loans, and all the other stuff pushing people into the market to get the free money that the 2000-2004 people got.

Interest how the CS index has returned to blue line now. I didn't really expect that, but that does add support to my argument, since real wages are still pretty flat compared to 2000.

swebb says

the cement factory and bus repair depot

If I were king, I'd use zoning to limit land value effects on businesses.

It's not important to capture every last dollar on the table via LVT. It's just important to break the specuvestors' and rent-seekers' business models to incent them to invest their money helping Man instead of enslaving us.

A properly-run LVT would bring in more money than we'd know what to do with as it is : )

LVT rewards people building up to the zoning max. This creates oversupply and rights many other sins.

Like I said above, AFAICT Tokyo is now basically in the state of overbuilding. Rents are pretty cheap (I think), even though land values are still relatively high. I think Tokyo got this way by getting in its 400+% debt-to-GDP condition (i.e. they borrowed to build), but their density and modern construction stock is what a LVTer would like to see. (Cruising around Tokyo in google street view I am shocked to see all the new building done since I left in 2000).

Bellingham Bob says

Ceteris paribus -- when wages are otherwise flat -- I fail to see how its controversial to assert that "housing prices are dependent on interest rates".

And I agree with that. It's not controversial.

Like I said--interest rate effects are an order of magnitude less powerful than wage effects. If wage effects are minimal, then interest rate effects become more powerful.

Anyways--my point was just to say what historical data has shown.

An elegant solution to finding the "right" land value tax is just to have public bidding on it for every land sale.

Whoever agrees to pay the highest tax gets the land.

Two problem with that:

1. It's impossible to strip already in-service land back to "raw land" state, undoing all land filling, grading, buried utility lines, etc..

2. Why should the full economic value of the land accrue to the monopolistic government bureaucracy instead of the renters who then can enjoy lower rent without the tax burden?

The land auction as government revenue approach has been tried in other parts of the world. For example, HongKong generated the bulk of its government revenue that way for almost half a century from after WWII until less than a decade ago. Instead of collecting annual land rent/tax, the government would auction newly opened up land for a one-time fee on a 99-yr lease. The result was extremely high housing cost, extremely packed living conditions for most people living there, and making a handful of developers extremely rich.

I doubt that's what socialist experimenters want, unless they are already bought off by the extremely rich, like many a historical big-name socialist agitators turned out to be.

Reality says

Not at all. You have to look closely at what the real meaning of the data is, lest you fall for the old saying "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Yes--the real meaning is that historically interest rates haven't had a major effect on housing prices. Wages have.

Like Bob said--if wages are stagnant, then interest rates may have an effect.

tatupu70 says

Yes--the real meaning is that historically interest rates haven't had a major effect on housing prices. Wages have.

Like Bob said--if wages are stagnant, then interest rates may have an effect.

Nominal wages or real wages? Nominal price or real price? If you use nominal for both over 100 years, you are just plotting inflation more than anything else.

Reality says

Nominal wages or real wages? Nominal price or real price? If you use nominal for both over 100 years, you are just plotting inflation more than anything else.

Nominal. Of course inflation is the major driver. That's my point.

Bellingham Bob says

It's not important to capture every last dollar on the table via LVT. It's just important to break the specuvestors' and rent-seekers' business models to incent them to invest their money helping Man instead of enslaving us.

What enslaving are you talking about? Is your land preventing you from leaving and rentng from someone else? A high LVT leading to government owning all land would actually reduce the entire population to serfs.

A properly-run LVT would bring in more money than we'd know what to do with as it is : )

In other words, the government would enslave the people more than ever. The whole point of your exercise is about raising revenue not about shifting revenue source, much less about fairness or equitability.

LVT rewards people building up to the zoning max. This creates oversupply and rights many other sins.

If there is enough rent income to be found, why wouldn't landlords already build to the max? if money is their primary goal.

Like I said above, AFAICT Tokyo is now basically in the state of overbuilding. Rents are pretty cheap (I think), even though land values are still relatively high. I think Tokyo got this way by getting in its 400+% debt-to-GDP condition (i.e. they borrowed to build), but their density and modern construction stock is what a LVTer would like to see. (Cruising around Tokyo in google street view I am shocked to see all the new building done since I left in 2000).

Only a small minority of Americans would enjoy the kind of high density living that is the case in Tokyo. Even Japanese prefer lower density. Packing enormous number of people into small area actually create new monopolistic economic Rent in several areas: retail, service, schools and even churches, etc. would all be able to charge monopolistic economic Rent when people have to give up their cars.

Funny you should decry "enslavement" at the beginning of your post, then end up promoting something like this.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Nominal wages or real wages? Nominal price or real price? If you use nominal for both over 100 years, you are just plotting inflation more than anything else.

Nominal. Of course inflation is the major driver. That's my point.

Then that's a pointless point. Over 100 years spanning 3 different monetary synstems, you can draw correlation in nominal price between just about anything. That says absolute nothing about the real relationship between the two goods.

Just like I suspected, you are looking at a graph that has way too coarse granuality. My surprise is that you didn't even bother to normalize them with inflation. As the old saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I actually love statistics, but I hate lies. That's why I always look into the details when presented with graphs or statistics.

Reality says

pkowen says

Reality says

Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "arbitrary."

Indeed, mine is from a dictionary. Yours is whatever mangled logic it takes to continue your opinionated and confused rants.

No, to me, valuation has to be somewhat reflective of market reality . . . not some number pulled out of some academic's ass because they had a convention somewhere, like in the former Soviet Union.

To me, valuation deviation form market reality is "arbitrary."

"Academics ass" ... "Soviet Union". You clearly are not worth my time.

You cloud your own assessment of rational and logical solutions with a blind dislike of the bogeyman of government "bureaucracy", academics, and apparently Soviets. Soviet Union? Really? Do you know anything about the subject at hand?? Clearly not. I'm done with you.

One last thought for those who might actually be listening to this clown as though he actually had rational arguments:

Valuation using mass appraisal is indeed "somewhat" reflective of market reality, but more stable and consistent and less prone to irrational market swings (reference: the past 10 years). Typically, appraised value as defined by the tax assessor is LESS than recent market sales data. Rather than being at the whim of the volatile "market", which is by any definition more arbitrary than a formula - mass appraisal uses common characteristics of property rather than whims of buyers. Of course, in CA we threw out mass appraisal in favor of a less stable, more inconsistent supposedly "market driven" system. Now, some pay 10x more (or less) than their neighbors, simply because of market fluctuations.

Georgism is likewise a rational solution. Too bad we now live in a country where we cannot discuss things rationally. Instead, reason and logic have been replaced with opinionated half-baked rhetoric.

pkowen says

"Academics ass" ... "Soviet Union". You clearly are not worth my time.

Then you proceed to contradict yourself.

You cloud your own assessment of rational and logical solutions with a blind dislike of the bogeyman of government "bureaucracy", academics, and apparently Soviets. Soviet Union? Really? Do you know anything about the subject at hand?? Clearly not. I'm done with you.

Which subject? I know quite well about the subject on how Soviet and Marxian system of relying on wise men (academics) to evaluate goods and plan their economy.

BTW, stop contradicting yourself every paragraph with "I'm done with you" then proceed to do the exact opposite.

One last thought for those who might actually be listening to this clown as though he actually had rational arguments

You are not very funny . . . for a clown.

Valuation using mass appraisal is indeed "somewhat" reflective of market reality, but more stable and consistent and less prone to irrational market swings (reference: the past 10 years).

In other words, "don't confuse me with facts on the ground." You obviously believe your "somewhat reflective of market reality" is more "rational" and more appropriate than the market reality itself . . . which was precisely my point earlier: if we leave to the government bureaucrats to decide what the land owners land is really worth and tax that value heavily, we are all screwed! They are perfectly willing to contort themselves in order to come up with a steady stream of tax revenue . . . real land value be damned!

Rather than being at the whim of the volatile "market", which is by any definition more arbitrary than a formula - mass appraisal uses common characteristics of property rather than whims of buyers.

The whims of bureaucratic formulae must be better than the whims of people spending their own money! Welcome to the USSR. LOL! Show me one formula that encompasses everything that can ever happen to a house. Does it account for meth lab history? dog/cat pee? fluting on the eves? guilding? etc. etc.?

Georgism is likewise a rational solution.

No it is not. Self-proclaimed Georgists can't even agree among themselves what "land" is

pkowen says

reason and logic have been replaced with opinionated half-baked rhetoric.

what i call misean / right-libertarian bullshit.

My "institutional defenses of intergenerational wealth" was referring to Heritage Foundation, Cato, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute, AEI, the WSJ, FOXNEWS, etc etc.

The forces of wealth have built up quite the message machine. Opposing it is centrists like Krugman, and some moderately left mirror-image organizations like CBPP and whatever Soros is funding.

Red-baiting is a standard thing the defenders of wealth do; from my "Royal Libertarian" link:

"Royal libertarians are fond of confusing the classical liberal concept of common land ownership, particularly as espoused by land value tax advocate Henry George, with socialism."

The funny thing is Georgism is generally quite compatible with capitalism, just not the rent-seeking kind we are suffering under today.

William F Buckley and Georgism:

http://freeliberal.com/archives/003247.php

Given the immense amount of wealth currently sitting in land, one would expect to see immense amounts of push-back on directly taxing this wealth away. Anything less would be the dog that didn't bark.