Talk:Land value tax

The inscription on the sign has nothing to do with property tax. It discusses a capital gain, which is applied to other forms of property besides real estate, and only upon sale of the property. The appreciation of the land will be assessed at higher value for annual property taxes. In fact, a property that appreciates in value brings in more revenue to the government both in capital gains and in land taxes.

This sort of sleight of hand is common to Marxist arguments. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:15, 9 May 2019 (EDTi

A vulgar Marxist stereotype, "citizens with higher wealth or income." Many ranchers and other land owners have little cash income. Their "wealth" is measured in the fair market value of their land. To artificially assess land value below market impoverishes both the land owner (lowering its collateral value and the owners' ability to borrow to improve the land), and the government entity he pays taxes to. This phrase is just plain ol' fashioned Marxist hate speech. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:26, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Georgism is complete insanity. It is little more than an attack on fair market value by the rich powerful elite, using Marxist class warfare, to keep their taxes low. It wants to value land using cost as basis, without appreciation, taking no account (for instance) of the increase in money supply (which increases with population) and inflation over a span of time, reflected in land values. It relies on the economically illiterate and simpletons to read signs like George posted, which essentially was an advertisement for the sale of his books.

The issue here is legal title, not land values, or "the rich," etc. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:34, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Hello Rob, welcome to the ProgressingAmerica project!  :-) Now you see what I have to deal with on a regular basis. Making sense of the nonsensical. Based on the timestamps of your comments, I gather that you did a little looking into Georgism, which I greatly appreciate. As for the references to Marxism, both George and Marx deeply disliked each other's ideas. At least, Marx's thoughts on the topic are known. Here are some: [1] I have not yet found the original source of George.(Admittedly, I haven't searched very far. I know George is the Founding Father of progressivism, and that's enough for me. I have plenty other things to spend time on) For the rest of your comments, we are more or less in agreement. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2019 (EDT)

Well thanks. I think I had a cursory encounter with Georgism years ago, and dismissed it. IMO, George was simply a huckster and charlatan taking advantage of the poor, exploiting deep seated feelings of envy toward others who are more ambitious, educated, and successful. He did it to sell books to line his own pockets. it's quack economics. Still common today.

You can see he was motivated by greed, waiting till the property appreciated to $6,000 to take advantage of capital gains, and escaping higher property tax assessments. A snake oil salesman. That's probably why Marx differed; Marx was a true believer who saw through George's nonsense and the bourgeois scum that he really was. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:04, 13 May 2019 (EDT)