Is Land Value Taxation the solution? - Page 24 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14554456
How many were landowners?

If you believe Selby The Revolution in Virginia 1775-83, in 1781, in the Northern Neck of Virginia, 60% of white males owned 200 acres or more.

George Mason to George Mason Jr. June 3, 1781 wrote:The typical white Virginian male was a small farmer [who] had access to no more than 200 acres, at most a slave or two, and some cattle.

Unfortunately, when it is known that Virginian subsistence farmers (landowners) hired themselves out as agricultural labourers and rented small parcels of land to augment their meagre holdings, the '60%' and '200 acres' are the only numbers that Selby gives I would trust.

ingliz wrote:Because of their chronic shortage of cash, some southern yeomen, particularly younger men, hired themselves out as agricultural workers when they needed hard currency.

subsistence farmers

If you believe Rohrer Wandering Souls: Protestant Migrations in America, 1630-1865, in 1789 in Shrewsbury, East Jersey, 23.6% of taxpayers had holdings of less than 50 acres.

How many owned land of enough value to pay more in land value tax than they ended up paying in other taxes?

All of them if you insist that taxes were levied in accordance with article 8.

ingliz wrote:Between the Yorktown victory of 1781 and the federal assumption of state debts in 1790, Americans were hit with taxes that averaged three or four times those of the colonial era.

Freeholders paid the bulk of the taxes.

look up "implemented" and "apportioned."

implement verb: put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect.

Truth to Power wrote:Article 8 was never implemented

apportion verb: to distribute or allocate proportionally; divide and assign according to some rule of proportional distribution.

The rule:

VIII, Articles of Confederation wrote:in proportion to the value of all land within each State

Federal taxes and expenses could not be apportioned according to the rule as "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable."*

Truth to Power wrote:I'm sure land value also dropped


* Pitkin A Political and Civil History of the United States of America

The Marxist is only interested...

#14554576
How many were landowners?

ingliz wrote:If you believe Selby The Revolution in Virginia 1775-83, in 1781, in the Northern Neck of Virginia, 60% of white males owned 200 acres or more.

<yawn> What does one tiny area, with a microscopic population, have to do with anything?
George Mason to George Mason Jr. June 3, 1781 wrote:The typical white Virginian male was a small farmer [who] had access to no more than 200 acres, at most a slave or two, and some cattle.

"Had access to." Not "owned."

Everything you post confirms that you are wrong.
Unfortunately, when it is known that Virginian subsistence farmers (landowners) hired themselves out as agricultural labourers and rented small parcels of land to augment their meagre holdings, the '60%' and '200 acres' are the only numbers that Selby gives I would trust.

Sorry, but I trust fact and logic, which say you are posting this silly tripe to cover the fact that you have no evidence for your claims.
ingliz wrote:Because of their chronic shortage of cash, some southern yeomen, particularly younger men, hired themselves out as agricultural workers when they needed hard currency.

So they would have had a lower tax burden with LVT.
If you believe Rohrer Wandering Souls: Protestant Migrations in America, 1630-1865, in 1789 in Shrewsbury, East Jersey, 23.6% of taxpayers had holdings of less than 50 acres.

Area is not value, so you lose again.
How many owned land of enough value to pay more in land value tax than they ended up paying in other taxes?

All of them if you insist that taxes were levied in accordance with article 8.

That's just clearly false. They were being crushed by taxes that WEREN'T LVT, so all but the handful of richest landowners would have been better off with LVT:
ingliz wrote:Between the Yorktown victory of 1781 and the federal assumption of state debts in 1790, Americans were hit with taxes that averaged three or four times those of the colonial era.

See?
Freeholders paid the bulk of the taxes.

Because they were the only ones who benefitted from government services and infrastructure.
implement verb: put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect.

Truth to Power wrote:Article 8 was never implemented

apportion verb: to distribute or allocate proportionally; divide and assign according to some rule of proportional distribution.

The rule:

VIII, Articles of Confederation wrote:in proportion to the value of all land within each State

Federal taxes and expenses could not be apportioned according to the rule as "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable."*

Thanks for posting the proof that they ALREADY HAD been apportioned, ACCORDING TO the rule.

As Shays's Rebellion made clear, a fundamental injustice was at work: the federal government owed back pay to the army, and because the states would not pay the land tax, it couldn't pay them; but at the same time, the ex-soldiers, who had often run up debts feeding their families while they were off fighting, were required to pay, and had their property -- capital goods, livestock, etc. as well as land -- seized when they couldn't. This deprived them of their means of livelihood, and made any tax unbearable. If the federal government had simply issued money to pay the soldiers, money that it would accept in payment of the LVT, the economy would have recovered with minimal disruption, injustice and delay.
#14554614
If the federal government had simply issued money to pay the soldiers

Congress had printed $241 million of notes, the states $209 million.

The states 1785-87:

North Carolina issued a large amount of paper, and a law was passed prohibiting any planter or merchant from exporting any produce without taking affidavit that he had never refused to receive this scrip at its full face value.

Pennsylvania issued a million dollars in bills of credit, which were not made a legal tender for the payment of private debts. They were mainly loaned to farmers on mortgage, and were received by the state as an equivalent for specie in the payment of taxes.

New York issued a million dollars in bills of credit receivable for the custom-house duties, which were then paid into the state treasury, and these bills were made a legal tender for all money received in lawsuits.

At the same time, the New Jersey legislature passed a bill for issuing half a million paper dollars, to be a legal tender in all business transactions.

The Rhode Island legislature issued half a million dollars in scrip and a forcing act was passed commanding every one to take paper as an equivalent for gold, under penalty of five hundred dollars fine and loss of the right of suffrage. A second act provided that if a debtor should offer paper to his creditor and the creditor should refuse to take it at par, the debtor might carry his rag money to court and deposit it with the judge; and the judge must thereupon issue a certificate discharging the debt.

Thanks for posting the proof that they ALREADY HAD been apportioned, ACCORDING TO the rule.

How could the tax have been apportioned according to the rule, ie. in proportion to the value of all land within each state when all land within each state had not been valued?

Moreover, how could the tax be apportioned according to the rule, ie. in proportion to the value of all land within each state, when the rule was ignored by Congress the proportions being regulated by the supposed number of inhabitants of each state from 1777 and the three-fifths rule from 1783?

Pitkin, A Political and Civil History of the United States of America wrote:The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation. A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed; and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable. The proportions had been generally regulated by the supposed number of inhabitants. Congress now proposed to the consideration of the states, an alteration in the articles, providing, that the proportion should be governed by the proportion of white and other free citizens, including those bound in servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons.

For all your bombast, counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the mechanisms used to apportion requisitions (the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation) among the states, not land value.

I'm sure land value also dropped

By how much?


Last edited by ingliz on 07 May 2015 22:28, edited 4 times in total.
#14554619
Thanks for posting the proof that they ALREADY HAD been apportioned, ACCORDING TO the rule.

ingliz wrote:How could the tax have been apportioned according to the rule, ie. in proportion to the value of all land within each state when all land within each state had not been valued?

Same way an income tax is apportioned among taxpayers according to how much taxable income they have before that income is calculated.
Moreover, how could the tax be apportioned according to the rule, ie. in proportion to the value of all land within each state, when the rule was ignored by Congress the proportions being regulated by the supposed number of inhabitants of each state from 1777 and the three-fifths rule from 1783?

The apportionment was ignored because the tax was never collected. That`s obvious.
For all your bombast, counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the mechanisms used to apportion requisitions (the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation) among the states, not land value.

I said the Founders tried to implement LVT, not that they succeeded.
I'm sure land value also dropped

By how much?

Given the economic contraction, exacerbated by debt seizures and forced sales, more than 50% is quite likely.
#14554647
Same way an income tax is apportioned among taxpayers according to how much taxable income they have before that income is calculated.

Bollocks! Counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the mechanisms used to apportion requisitions among the states, not land value.

The apportionment was ignored because the tax was never collected

Because the tax was never collected my arse! The taxes and expenses of the union were not, and had never been, apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.

Given the economic contraction, exacerbated by debt seizures and forced sales, more than 50% is quite likely.

Be honest you have no idea, have you?

Fiske, The Critical Period of American History 1785-89 wrote: It was soon agreed that wealth was difficult to reckon and population easy to count... It was much easier to count noses than to assess the value of farms and stock


#14554681
Same way an income tax is apportioned among taxpayers according to how much taxable income they have before that income is calculated.

ingliz wrote:Bollocks!

It's a plain fact.
Counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the mechanisms used to apportion requisitions among the states, not land value.

Because requisitions were not a land value tax, duh.

You're just being obtuse and tiresome, now.
The apportionment was ignored because the tax was never collected

Because the tax was never collected my arse!

Are you now claiming it was collected?
The taxes and expenses of the union were not, and had never been, apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.

They were apportioned by Article 8, very explicitly:

"All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint."

Given the economic contraction, exacerbated by debt seizures and forced sales, more than 50% is quite likely.

Be honest you have no idea, have you?

I have a pretty good idea. But it's irrelevant, as the actual base of a land value tax is land rent, not land value, and land rent is much more stable.
Fiske, The Critical Period of American History 1785-89 wrote: It was soon agreed that wealth was difficult to reckon and population easy to count... It was much easier to count noses than to assess the value of farms and stock

Lots of things are easier to measure than land value, and it's certainly true that a small and poor population spread over a large and diverse geography would find it burdensome to conduct a comprehensive assessment of land value with the quill-and-parchment data processing technology then available. So what? The Founders tried to use LVT; but they didn't know how to implement it, so it was never levied. I'm right, you're wrong. Full stop.

#14554812
Because requisitions were not a land value tax

Requisitions were the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation.

which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State

Counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the mechanisms used to apportion requisitions among the states, not land value.

The Founders tried to use LVT

If requisitions were the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation, counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the only mechanisms used to apportion requisitions, and requisitions were not a land value tax. When did the Founders try to use LVT?


#14554813
A presumably British Marxist resists information that I believed only right wing Americans would resist due to some otherwise uncomfortable mental contradictions. Just another time in another LVT thread somewhere on the internet. There is not nearly as much animosity in real life, so I believe it's mostly about spreading the information. A majority of people I talk to are very receptive of the idea once the imprinted simple and easy to dismiss misinformation in their mind is cast aside and new horizons are opened. This thread served to give me some more ammunition. Thank you Ingliz for helping spread LVT throughout the West. Cheers!
#14555007
Because requisitions were not a land value tax

ingliz wrote:Requisitions were the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation.

Under the Articles, LVT was to be the government's sole revenue source, whereas requisitions were used to raise men and equipment for the army under Article 9.
which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State

Counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the mechanisms used to apportion requisitions among the states, not land value.

Because requisitions are not LVT, and were used to raise the army, not pay the government's expenses.
The Founders tried to use LVT

If requisitions were the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation,

Requisitions were a continuation of the Continental Army's practice during the Revolution, pre-dating the Articles of Confederation.
counting noses and the three-fifths rule were the only mechanisms used to apportion requisitions, and requisitions were not a land value tax.

I think we've established that, thanks.
When did the Founders try to use LVT?

When they wrote Article 8. Are you claiming they didn't?
#14555118
Under the Articles, LVT was to be the government's sole revenue source

No

Your assumption is that each state would levy LVT on each county, and so on down to the individual, but you seem to be forgetting that, under the Articles, the national government had no authority to impose or collect taxes. Under the Articles, each state was a sovereign entity and could levy tax as it pleased.

Article 8 wrote:The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States

Requisitions

Congress could request states pay federal taxes.

request

requisition n. a request or demand


#14555895
Under the Articles, LVT was to be the government's sole revenue source

ingliz wrote:No

Yes:
Your assumption is that each state would levy LVT on each county, and so on down to the individual,

No, it isn't. States don't levy counties for revenue. State property taxes are levied directly on individual property owners.
but you seem to be forgetting that, under the Articles, the national government had no authority to impose or collect taxes.

No. I'm not forgetting it; it's irrelevant to the point -- i.e., just another of your red herrings.
Under the Articles, each state was a sovereign entity and could levy tax as it pleased.


Article 8 wrote:The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States

Just as the state does not prescribe how an individual property owner raises the money to pay their property taxes, Congress did not prescribe how the states were to raise their LVT payments. That does not mean it wasn't LVT.

<irrelevancies snipped>
#14555911
States don't levy counties for revenue.

In 1782, taxes were collected at the county level, and most of the proceeds were spent there too.

That does not mean it wasn't LVT.

Truth to Power wrote:requisitions were not a land value tax, duh.


#14555990
States don't levy counties for revenue.

ingliz wrote:In 1782, taxes were collected at the county level, and most of the proceeds were spent there too.

They were collected and spent at the county level because they were county taxes, not state or federal taxes, duh.

God, you are a waste of time.
That does not mean it wasn't LVT.

Truth to Power wrote:requisitions were not a land value tax, duh.

More despicably disingenuous context chopping.
#14556079
They were collected and spent at the county level because they were county taxes, not state or federal taxes, duh

Don't be silly.

State property taxes [were] levied directly on individual property owners.

Wrong!

The County Sheriff was personally liable for the full amount due from the county to the central government.


#14556562
They were collected and spent at the county level because they were county taxes, not state or federal taxes, duh

ingliz wrote:Don't be silly.

I'm not the one who claims a tax that burdens people in exact proportion to the value of land they own favors the landed rich over the landless poor *Edit: Rule 2 violation removed*. In a million years I could never say anything half as silly as that.
State property taxes [were] levied directly on individual property owners.

Wrong!

We already know how such claims from you work: you will now produce some irrelevant nonsense that does not support your claim, and pretend that it does support it:
The County Sheriff was personally liable for the full amount due from the county to the central government.

See?
Last edited by wat0n on 14 May 2015 13:46, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Rule 2 violation removed, user warned
#14556572
State property taxes [were] levied directly on individual property owners.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Americans were taxed on their land (real property), and on certain items of personal property. They were also taxed by the head as polls, or as “tithables”. Both types of taxes were collected at the county level, and most of the proceeds were spent there too.

Landowners were taxed on land they owned in a county, regardless of where they resided. Generally, the amount of the tax was proportional to the acreage.

Personal property taxes were laid, especially from 1782 on, on certain items of luxury, and on certain non-real capital assets. Thus personal property taxes may be seen as a tax on either wealth or enterprise, and they introduced an element of progressivity into taxation.

Tithables principally comprised all white males aged 16 or over (including indentured servants), and also slaves of both sexes aged 16 or over though the ages of tithable slaves was changed occasionally over the years. The tax on tithables was principally a labour service tax, and the concept evolved out of the lists kept at the county level of the able-bodied men subject to militia duty, though the main form that labour service took was the construction and maintenance of roads. Heads of household (who might be non-tithable women, usually widows with no grown sons) were responsible for mustering their tithables on call, or for paying any personal property tax due, mostly for livestock.

Persons liable for taxes on property or tithables were required to make their returns to a county-appointed tax commissioner. These returns were called “vouchers” and were then used by the commissioner (when his collection of vouchers was complete) to make four copies of an alphabetized fair copy list for delivery to the County Clerk, along with the vouchers, so that the Clerk could audit and certify the lists. The Clerk then returned one copy to the commissioner for use by him, or his successor next year, kept one copy for his own records, forwarded one copy to the County Sheriff who was responsible for collecting the tax, and one copy to the State solicitor so he could audit the Sheriff.

State taxes were levied directly on the County Sheriff who was personally liable for the full amount due from the county to the central government. That is why the sheriff was necessarily a man of substance and was typically bonded by wealthy friends.





Edited: The first sentence for clarity
Last edited by ingliz on 14 May 2015 18:30, edited 3 times in total.
#14556609
State property taxes [were] levied directly on individual property owners.

Why did you change "are" to "were," making it seem I said something I did not say?

As if we don't both know very well why....
ingliz wrote:Eariy Americans were taxed on their land (real property), and on certain items of personal property. They were also taxed by the head as polls, or as “tithables”. Both types of taxes were collected at the county level, and most of the proceeds were spent there too.

Proving me right and you wrong.
State taxes were levied directly on the County Sheriff who was personally liable for the full amount due from the county to the central government.

No. The taxes were levied directly on the individual taxpayers; the Sheriff was liable because he was authorized to use force to collect the money. It was a way of making sure the Sheriff didn't just rob taxpayers (remember the Sheriff of Nottingham?) before modern financial systems were in place.
#14556656
Why did you change "are" to "were," ...?

Because I had no idea what you were talking about, and I was talking about the early federal period (1782-87) and tax under the Articles of Confederation.

The taxes were levied directly on the individual taxpayers

By the county!

ingliz wrote:Persons liable for taxes on property or tithables were required to make their returns to a county-appointed tax commissioner.

The County Sheriff, a state-appointed official, collected taxes as the county directed. The personal property tax lists, from 1782-1787, did double duty as the poll, or head, tax list; the lists were compiled by the counties. Don't forget, the Revolutionary War was fought over tax. Unsurprisingly, Americans were tax-averse. It was only after 1787 that the tax commissioners were required to distinguish between those subject only to parish and county levy, and state taxpayers

The taxes were levied directly on the individual taxpayers

I understand the distinction is subtle, and you may consider it purely fictive, but when the state audited county returns they sent the bill to the County Sheriff, not the individual taxpayer.

ingliz wrote:The County Sheriff was personally liable for the full amount due from the county to the central government.

Proving me right and you wrong.

#14556742
Why did you change "are" to "were," ...?

ingliz wrote:Because I had no idea what you were talking about,

No, that's false. You did it in order to create a false impression that you were responding to and refuting something I had said, and which I of course had not in fact said.

And, of course, to divert readers' attention from your false and absurd claims about LVT.
The taxes were levied directly on the individual taxpayers

By the county!

Which is why they were also spent by the county. Duh.
I understand the distinction is subtle, and you may consider it purely fictive, but when the state audited county returns they sent the bill to the County Sheriff, not the individual taxpayer.

Of course it's purely fictive. That's why you have made it the centerpiece of your "argument."
ingliz wrote:The County Sheriff was personally liable for the full amount due from the county to the central government.

Proving me right and you wrong.

More context chopping to mislead readers and divert their attention from your false and absurd claims about LVT..
#14556811
No, that's false. You did it in order to create a false impression that you were responding to and refuting something I had said, and which I of course had not in fact said.

We were discussing the early federal period, and you came out with this.

Truth to Power wrote:States don't levy counties for revenue. State property taxes are levied directly on individual property owners

Of course, I am confused. In context, it's a rhubarb statement. Irrelevant waffle if you meant to use a present tense conjugation of the verb be. I made the mistake of thinking it something more and corrected your tenses.



ingliz wrote:when the state audited county returns they sent the bill to the County Sheriff, not the individual taxpayer.


Example:

Adam Fischer (b. ca 1736 d. 1787), Frederick County Sheriff, Maryland 1782- 85(?); collector of taxes, Frederick County, in office 1785.

His property was seized after his death to pay £7,690.3.0, tax monies he allegedly owed the state as Frederick County tax collector.

A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al.


Last edited by wat0n on 18 May 2015 04:40, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Posts merged
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]