Talk:Land value tax

Pickiness and Submission as Good Article

I think the remaining tags are really too picky. They should be removed and this article should be nominated as good article. Come one perfection is the enemy of the good. If you look at other tax articles, this one is really outstanding. I'm not totally thrilled by External Links, there is a lot of general advocacy group kind of stuff that really doesn't add much to the party. 70.22.67.251 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is much better now (in no small part due to your good work), but I still think the tagged areas have problems. For now I'll focus on fixing what's already tagged, and once they're gone I'm all for a Good Article submission. --Explodicle (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed all the areas that were tagged. You might like to take a look at the guide for nominating good articles before you put in the request, but at this point I have no complaints. --Explodicle (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To freaking complicated for me to even figure out how to do it.70.22.67.251 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's looking pretty good, I'll do the nomination. --Explodicle (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should resubmit. The quick fail was totally unsupported when it came down to "show the basis" challenge.69.250.30.31 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the external links section? It seems to feature predominantly pro-LVT sites. Even after that, I think we should put in a request for feedback about potential POV problems. --Explodicle (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I eliminated the external links, and I've asked for feedback. --Explodicle (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This article was "quick failed". The problem is the obvious pro-Georgist bias that clearly violates WP:NPOV. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

obvious pro-georgist bias? Aren't there as many criticisms against as claims in support? The article seems mostly historical. And quite a bit of work was put into avoiding POV during the edits over the last few months.

That which is opinion has clearly been labelled as such by phrases like "claims", e.g.

It seems to me that you need to provide some specificity for your claim that the article violates NPOV.

69.250.30.31 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would you please tag the places that are POV? We'd be happy to fix any problems, but where they are is not quite so obvious to us. --Explodicle (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

While I myself personally support taxes that have low deadweight loss, I do recognize that this article has extensive NPOV problems. For a start, please look at [1]. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well to be fair that template is intended for articles which only have an "arguments against" section hiving off negative criticism from the main body of the article, whereas this article has both an "arguments against" and a balancing "arguments in favour" section. And that approach is not unique to the LVT article. Other taxation articles use it too. Flat tax has such sections (albeit with slightly different titles). Both the VAT and the Income tax articles only have an "arguments against" section and so could definitely be accused of violating NPOV on the grounds of that template. However since the LVT article has two balancing "controversy" sections, one describing the arguments of LVT's proponents and the other those of its opponents, it seems strange that you accuse the article of violating NPOV for that very reason. After all the essence of the NPOV is to describe multiple points of view, where they exist, and Explodicle in particular has worked hard to do just that in this article. That's why we'd prefer to see specific criticism rather than a blanket condemnation of the entire article. There may be other reasons why this is not a Good Article but you haven't yet made a convincing case on the grounds of lack of NPOV. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The template recommends integrating criticism sections into other sections, so each section would be neutral. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more interested in improving the article than getting it a shiny award anyways. I think it's possible to restructure for less (or none) of the content in the pro/con sections; if this article is an exception to the guideline like Mercantilism then so be it, but we should at least give it a shot before renominating. I'll post a proposed new layout once I've thought about it more. --Explodicle (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I have so far. Just go ahead and edit the bullets below if you can think of any improvments. --Explodicle (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, and 3.2 into a new "Economic effects" section.
• Merge 2.4 to section 4.5. Will need a {{topheavy}} tag at first.
• Merge 2.6 and 2.7 to section 4.2
• Merge 3.3 to section 1.

What about something like this

2 Claims regarding problems, advantages and disadvantages

Implementation obstacles and advantages

Combine these

3.3 Legal obstacles in some jurisdictions

2.4 Simplicity and certainty

3.1 Cannot raise sufficient revenue

3.2 Loss of asset value

Economic Effects

Combine these

2.1 Leads to increased economic activity

2.2 Produces few if any distortions

2.3 Efficient use of land

2.5 Less speculation

Philosophic, Ethical and Religious Concerns

Combine these

2.6 Land Value Taxation is a "value capture tax"

2.7 Fairness and justice

Not fair because it does not respect private property, or something like that? don't quite understand the complaint but have heard it about all taxation of property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.59.134 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should keep it as simple as possible for now and go from there. Also, rather than calling a section "claims" or "concerns", we should structure the article as fact and point out individual claims as part of the narrative. --Explodicle (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So instead of a header like claims/concerns we'd just have it these sections? If so I'd agree.

Implementation obstacles and advantages

Combine these 3.3 Legal obstacles in some jurisdictions 2.4 Simplicity and certainty 3.1 Cannot raise sufficient revenue 3.2 Loss of asset value

Economic Effects

Combine these 2.1 Leads to increased economic activity 2.2 Produces few if any distortions 2.3 Efficient use of land 2.5 Less speculation

Philosophic, Ethical and Religious Concerns

Combine these 2.6 Land Value Taxation is a "value capture tax" 2.7 Fairness and justice Not fair because it does not respect private property, or something like that? don't quite understand the complaint but have heard it about all taxation of property.

70.22.59.134 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On Not Mentioning Marx

Marx should not be listed as a critic as he was in favour of LVT. He was very critical of those who saw it as a panacea, as the text in this article shows (though I don't like "step backwards" - step from where?), but since that criticism is about the theories of Henry George and other advocates rather than the tax itself the section would be more appropriate on the Georgism page. Pm67nz (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - I'll move it. --Explodicle (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving it makes sense because he was primarily critical of George. But to say that he was "in favor of LVT" is simply not completely true. The fairest thing that can be implied was that Marx was FOR taxation and confiscation of anything that was NOT Labor. But even this is complicated because Marx claim that distinction between "the State" and "the Economy", arose because of capitalism's exploitation of labor. Moreover, its not clear that Marx actually directly discusses taxation qua taxation. In Communist Manifesto, Section II. Proletarians and Communists, he is making a predictive judgment or alternatively, an observation, when he writes: "In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Some have suggested, e.g. on Wikipedia that this is support for a progressive income tax, but it might actually be that he is saying that a progressive income tax happens to preserve the capitalist status quo until such time as the distinction between classes falls away, which after all Marx say as an historical inevitability. The Capitalist hates the land controller as much as Labor hates the land controller. The simplest and fairest thing that can be said of Henry George was that he was FOR the taxation of Land Value and AGAINST the taxation of anything that was not based on the value of Land. But George did not believe that Labor must naturally hate the Capitalist or that the Capitalist exploits the Laborer.

Here's also an interesting take: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/DUGGER.htm And see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_62/ai_112083012/pg_10

Among other things you might note that Marx was also proponent of the notion that valuation is ostensibly problematic. 70.22.59.134 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

POV observations

This article is very obviously pro-Land Tax in its Point of View, and this hasn't been addressed very much. Of the five sections to the article: three are positive, one is neutral and one is part neutral/part negative. The few paragraphs with a negative appraisal of Land Tax are cryptic and difficult to read; while positive points are concisely highlighted in the article. I got the sense that the article was trying to "sell" me something - as you sometimes get with single-POV articles.

First, the article used to have equal numbers of "claims" and "criticism", but that was objected to as NPOV because an article like this ostensibly isn't supposed separate claims and criticism out like that. The fact is that there aren't really a lot of criticisms primarily because LVT isn't really used that much, because nobody gives a rat's behind enough to actually be critical. It's not like criticisms have been deleted. 70.22.59.134 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of LVT opposing topic material, that could be added to the article by someone much more familiar with economics and LVT than me, would be:

• Retires, pensioners or other low-income people can find themselves paying more money than they can afford - not an the basis of their income or spending habits, but on the value of their land. Something which they need to keep to live in, but can increase in value due to market dynamics outside their control. There has been examples of elderly people who can not pay increases in land tax on their home (city growth for example) and have been required to sell it.

This is version of the land rich,cash poor widow argument. It is also made against the property tax in general. The problem is that there isn't actually empirical data to support the claim. Moveover, most states have so-called homestead credits and/or "circuit breakers" based upon age and/or income to prevent this. Finally, studies of the proposed effects of a two-rate shift show that homeowners and elderly homeowners tend to pay less because they have more value in the structure than in the land. It is hard to put in a critique, if there are no published sources to cite! 70.22.59.134 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Market dynamics does influence the valuation of even unimproved land because increased income affluence increases services required/expected in a county, which increases costs, which increases the level of land tax required to break even on government services. LVT doesn't directly solve either the consumption-equity tax problem - because land isn't the service being consumed - or the affordability-fairness tax problem - since land (outside agriculture or mining) can't pay for itself (renting-out doesn't qualify as renters can't use the land to pay for their rent, it simply shifts the tax burden). If you peg a Land Value Tax to a affordability metric like income to resolve the affordability-fairness problem, then it isn't really a land tax anymore.

Where are the published sources supporting this claim? The problem again is when someone actually studies it we find that land value is more maldistributed than income.70.22.59.134 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Land Value Tax, and similar taxes anchored to the land, convert land from something with a purely capital cost - a possession similar to your bed or clothes or toothbrush - to something with an additional on-going outlay - like services have. Which requires a cultural-shift towards acknowledging taxing people's fixed asset base. The distinction of owning and renting land becomes blurred. Land Value Tax suits the anarcho-collectivism paradigm (economically speaking).

But land isn't like a bed or clothes or toothbrush. They are making more beds, clothes and toothbrushes; they aren't making any more land. And while beds, clothes and toothbrushes wear out, a location doesn't really depreciate - except on the agricultural margin. The paradigm was the taxation of people's fixed asset base -- this is historical the basis for the property tax which fell on all property (whether personal, land or improvement). So in a real sense LVT is a shift AWAY from not TOWARD taxing people's fixed asset base.70.22.59.134 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that land is a productive asset whereas beds, clothes and toothbrushes aren't: you can live off your land if you own enough (or even sell its produce to pay the LVT it is subject to) but it's a bit harder to live off your toothbrush, even if it's an enormous one, let alone use it to pay any taxes it might incur! So it's a bit disingenuous to equate the two kinds of property. Secondly in cost terms most people can afford to buy a toothbrush (or even a bed) without taking out a mortgage. Few people can do that with a plot of land. Hence to say that land, once bought, has no additional on-going outlay is rarely true. Mortgage repayments are very much an on-going outlay for the vast majority of us small-time landowners. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

203.9.185.216 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide sources for these criticisms, and throw in a few tags? The people who actually care about LVT tend to REALLLLLLY care one way or the other, so it's proven hard to keep it balanced. --Explodicle (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

After moving Murray Rothbard's criticism from external links into the article, I noticed that all the other external links are pro-LVT. Some of them may even count as extremist. Does anyone know about any useful but less biased sites we can use instead? --Explodicle (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While Rothbard's criticism should be included in the article, he does make a series of spectacularly weak arguments. For example:

"The single tax theory is further defective in that it runs up against a grave practical problem. How will the annual tax on land be levied? In many cases, the same person owns both the site and the man-made improvement, and buys and sells both site and improvement together, in a single package. How, then, will the government be able to separate site value from improvement value? No doubt, the single taxers would hire an army of tax assessors. But assessment is purely an arbitrary act and cannot be anything else. And being under the control of politics, it becomes purely a political act as well. Value can only be determined in exchange on the market. It cannot be determined by outside observers."

This ignores the fact that property tax is levied in every state in the nation. If we can determine the cost of improvements, and the cost of improvements and land together, surely we can determine with some degree of accuracy the cost of the land exclusive of improvements? If someone were to declare that income tax or sales tax was impossible, showing it in use should be sufficient evidence to discredit the statement. Since Harrisburg PA uses a split tax rate, considering both values separately, that is enough to cast doubt on his argument.

In addition, value is often determined for items that are not for sale. You can insure a home against fire even if you never plan to sell it, and you can insure absolutely unique items -- like art and items of historical interest -- even if they have never been on the auction block. The argument should not be the inability to reach a perfect valuation, but rather if what is reported and paid for yield a more accurate number than taxing sales or income, which can be hidden or under-valued. The difficulty for LVT is the assessment, but the difficulty for income and sales taxes is enforcement, and you have to determine which is an easier problem to solve.

That's a perfectly valid point, which is why LVT is compared to present-day property tax evaluations right under the Rothbard criticism. Feel free to be bold in any improvements you'll make to the section, just remember that it's the reader's place to judge Rothbard's ideas, not Wikipedia's. --Explodicle (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the external links section entirely. We've already got a lot of references tied into the text of the article, and I don't think they constituted a significant improvement. --Explodicle (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Implementation section

The implementation section looks kinda bland. Does anyone have any ideas for stuff we can add that isn't plain old text? --Explodicle (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rep Moritz, 1935 bill in House

I have removed the verification request. First, there are no links to bills that old. So the citation year and HR No. is sufficient. I have a copy of the bill. It was obtained for me by my Congressman and anybody can go to the Library of Congress and get it themselves. Despite myths to the contrary the whole of human knowledge is not online". There are plenty of citations to which there are no "links".70.22.38.29 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way you could scan your copy, or copy it to Wikisource? I'd like to give it a read. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Paine

Does this paragraph added to Advocates in the paragraph on Physiocrats pertain to them? It would better be entered as a new paragraph.

Thomas Paine contended in his Agrarian Justice pamphlet that all citizens should be paid 15 pounds at age 21 "as a compensation in part for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property." This proposal was the origin of the citizen's dividend advocated by Geolibertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.1.87 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just there because his pamphet is from the same time period and is philosophically similar. I agree that a section split would be a good idea, but only when we have more than a couple sentences on Paine's views. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

I think the article might be more neutral and useful if we change from having an "Advocacy" section to a "History" section, which would include the Advocacy section we've got now, the prehistory of LVT before Physiocrats (which is currently only mentioned in the lead). I'd probably split it up into pre-modern era (up to the Physiocrats) and modern era (Henry George and later). Any opinions? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Americans is nonsensical. Massachusetts adopted a land tax by 1635; New York, or rather the New Netherlands, imitated them in 1655. Hamilton was arguing for the sufficiency of the existing system, not advocating a new one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton does appear to favour Land Tax in the reference that you have just removed. He is discussing the practicality of having both state and federal taxation, and suggests that there is no problem with having both. "A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource." I do not understand why you feel Hamilton was not advocating LT.--wikirpg (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because he had no need to advocate it; the land tax was already the principal revenue of the several states, as indeed it still is. He was arguing (in one of the most commercial of the states) that the existing land tax was enough for the states, and they did not need a state tariff as well. We are not interested in isolated quotes, taken out of context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor is the distinction between the value of ground-rent and the value of improvements made in the Federalist (or as far as I can see, any where else in Hamilton's works). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To advocate something just means you're recommending it - whether or not a system was already in place is irrelevant. The point is that Hamilton clearly states support for the tax. I also think it's safe to assume that when he says "land tax", he means a land tax, not a property tax. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an anachronism; in the eighteenth century, a "land tax" was any tax on land. It is our modern use of "property tax" for a tax on real property which is the anomaly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Do you have a source that verifies this? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The OED defines land-tax as "A tax assessed upon landed property" (if they meant to specify type, or basis of assessment, they would), and quotes Henry Hallam's Constitutional History: "The first land-tax was imposed in 1690, at the rate of three shillings in the pound on the rental." This should not be surprising; the Land Value Tax requires state assessors to evaluate what portion of the total rental is the ground-rent; eighteenth century governments had neither the personnel nor the public trust to do this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the paragraph. Thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The main idea of the Physiocrats concept of laissez faire was that land was the only legitimate source of public revenue - thus the single tax on land; because a tax on labor (wages) or capital (interest) was to tax private property produced by human effort. The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood and advocated that concept of laissez faire. Hamilton refers to that in Federalist #36 - Accordingly, a land tax was advocated by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers #36 gives the consensus of the Constitutional Convention calling it the "most simple and most fit resource" of revenue researved to the States.

Dab295

I'm a bit confused. Pmanderson argued for the removal of the Federalist Papers #36 source on the grounds that Hamilton's use of "land tax" is an anachronism. Are you saying he is incorrect, and Hamilton is talking about a land value tax? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What Pmanderson says is a sophism. Hamilton was expressing the concensus of the Convention delagates, including Franklin, Madison, et al. Madison was in constant correspondence with Jefferson who was in France at the time. Hamilton is subtle in this matter just as it is in the Constitution, looking forward to a time in the future when it would be more acceptable and feasible; at this time he sometimes gave counter arguements as well. What I have written above should be restored to the article.

Dab295

The only source we've got for the old definition is right here. I don't know how conclusive it is, but it seems to imply "landed property" means the buildings too. I'm not 100% certain, but if you are then I won't stand in your way. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

===========

When I get the chance I'll add more from these sources: [2][3][4] --Explodicle (T/C) 16:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)