[ElVeeTee2BFree]

A LVT tax in the US to replace federal income taxes would be an economic disaster. It does little more than try to shift the tax burden from higher wage urban apartment dwellers and their landlords onto lower wage rural property owners. Fly-over country feeds the bellies and wallets of Park Avenue and the world. This idea undoubtedly mostly appeals to the same people who share posts on their Facebook about red states being welfare states.

LVT does not stand for Land Area Tax.

A LVT would do little more than force people to return to post-modern serfdom, never being able to afford any measure of independence.

Higher property tax rate states have more affordable homes. Why is that?

Fact is, you are the one who wants serfdom. Serfdom to landlords, landowners, and mortgage lenders.

The US has an over abundance of land so there is no need to control its use in such an authoritarian fashion.

High land prices in urban areas show just how NON ABUNDANT the economically most necessary land is.

Either way, landowning is a government granted privilege in the first place. Land's use would certainly be no more controlled than it is now. What would change is that the holder of the privilege to exclude others from a piece of land would no longer be entitled to get something for nothing.

If society is suffering a great enough ill, it already has the power to seize the land from its owner using eminent domain.

With a nice gift for doing absolutely nothing...

[Truth To Power]

the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal government.

No, they did not.

Yes, they did, as Article 8 of the Articles of Confederation proves.

The country and its states were bankrupt and in considerable debt. The states had printed $209 million of notes, Congress $241 million, yet they drew only small amounts of revenue from taxation – Congress drew none at all.

And on Planet Zondo, that might have been relevant to the fact that Article 8 proves me right and you wrong.

Greedy, evil landowners refused to pay

Ordinary Americans, often returned unpaid or underpaid Continental soldiers, borrowed heavily from urban creditors in order to establish farms or homes – then were unable to meet repayments due to the slumping agricultural market of the mid-1780s. Some state assemblies responded to this suffering, tension, unrest and (by 1786) uprisings by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.

Again, it would be helpful if you could think of something relevant to say.

were unable to meet repayments due to the slumping agricultural market of the mid-1780s.

And as the states were not collecting the LVT, the land acquisition costs, and therefore the debts, were simply that much bigger and less repayable.

Better to pay for government only once instead of twice. Much more affordable to cut out the something-for-nothing payment to the landowner. Why can't you ever remember that?

In mid-1785, prices for tobacco – a major export – slipped 50 per cent. Wholesale prices for farm products in Philadelphia in 1786 dropped by nearly two-thirds from 1784 levels. The economy declined by 41 per cent between 1774 and 1790.

Source? Measured how?

That refers to debt money, not fiat money

I am talking about debt-money systems because all modern capitalist countries use them.

So as usual, you are disingenuously changing the subject because you can't address what I actually said.

Roubini is only talking about debt money systems (because all modern capitalist countries use them)

seignorage

Currently, under the rules governing monetary operations of major central banks (including the central bank of the USA), seigniorage on bank notes is simply defined as the interest payments received by central banks on the total amount of currency issued. This usually takes the form of interest payments on treasury bonds purchased by central banks, putting more dollars into circulation.

Interest on the debt is paid by the government, not collected by it. Duh.

You incorrectly imagine this could be relevant to private landlords' business decisions.

Are you saying criminal prosecution is not a deterrent?

I'm saying it's irrelevant when they can't profit from such actions in any case.

£24,000 fine for beds in shed landlord

The single storey illegal structure housed a family of three on one side of the building and the other side of the building was occupied by three single males. The building was in an appalling condition. The roof was leaking, there were dangerous electrics, some of the rooms had no natural lighting or ventilation, there was no fire alarm or fire doors and no safe means of escape in the event of a fire. A fire in this building could have resulted in multiple fatalities.

Because the absence of LVT meant the landlord was only interested in pocketing the land rent.

A "success" that all too obviously exists only in your imagination.

I am not the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Give them credit for not believing their own hokum.

[ingliz]

the fact that Article 8

Article 8 is an irrelevance

The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.

Under the Articles of Confederation, no provisions were made for an executive branch to enforce the laws nor for a national court system to interpret them. The result was virtual chaos. Without the power to collect taxes, the federal government plunged into debt

We have neither troops. nor treasury, nor government.

the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal governmen

No, they did not.

The states were not collecting LVT. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784.*


* Merrill (1959). The Articles of Confederation

the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal governmen

No, they did not.

They printed paper money.

The states had printed $209 million of notes, Congress $241 million, yet they drew only small amounts of revenue from taxation – Congress drew none at all.

Greedy, evil landowners refused to pay

There is a difference between refusing to pay and being unable to pay taxes.

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. The principal purpose of the levies was to pay interest on securities, many of them bought up by speculators. In the mid-1780s, most states earmarked at least two-thirds of their tax revenue for foreign and domestic holders of the war bonds. The tax burden was magnified by a shortage of circulating coin. In 1785, four years after the South Carolina assembly voted to require that debts be paid in gold or silver, a newspaper writer who took the name Americanus said he had seen debtors forced to "give up £50" worth of property "to pay £10." "Who will call this Justice?" he asked.* State assemblies responded to the suffering by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.


* "Americanus" Charleston Columbian Herald, Sept. 28, 1785

Source?

B C Campbell, Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History

Interest on the debt is paid by the government, not collected by it

Yes, but It is important to note that the Federal Reserve returns the interest payments on its security holdings (less its expenses) to the U.S. Treasury. Consequently, when the Federal Reserve increases its bond holdings, for example, the U.S. Treasury realises an effective reduction to its debt expenses. The present value of the reduction in Treasury expenses is equal to the amount of money injected by the Federal Reserve’s open market purchase.

I'm saying it's irrelevant when they can't profit from such actions in any case.

If landlords are not profiting by such actions, why do they do it? A third of homes in the private rented sector do not meet basic standards of health, safety and habitability.

The report shows that:

A startling 33% of dwellings in the private rental sector are non-decent, meaning they do not meet basic standards of health, safety and habitability. For one-third of those living in private rental accommodation, life is lived in unsafe and unhealthy conditions below the basic minimum considered adequate in England.

Security of tenure in the private rental sector is inadequate. Tenants are afraid to complain about the poor quality of properties for fear of retaliatory evictions or arbitrary rent rises. There are no real safeguards against this practice and as many as 200,000 tenants were subject to a retaliatory eviction in 2013.

The private rental sector is increasingly unaffordable. The cost of housing is almost double that of social housing and private tenants are increasingly unable to meet the costs. A quarter of those renting in the private rental sector need housing benefit to meet the cost of housing.

[Truth To Power]

the fact that Article 8

Article 8 is an irrelevance

It proves me right and you wrong, as already proved.

The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.

IOW, they tried in the Articles, but did not succeed. When someone is described as having tried to do something, it is generally understood that they did not succeed.

Under the Articles of Confederation, no provisions were made for an executive branch to enforce the laws nor for a national court system to interpret them. The result was virtual chaos. Without the power to collect taxes, the federal government plunged into debt

We have neither troops. nor treasury, nor government.

the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal governmen

No, they did not.

Yes, they indisputably did, in the Articles of Confederation, as I have already proved to you multiple times. Your claim that because they did not succeed they did not try is prima facie fallacious and disingenuous, and equivalent to the self-evidently absurd claim that either the Articles were never written by the Founders, or that they were only written as a kind of schoolbook exercise, with no intention that they should ever take effect.

The states were not collecting LVT. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784.*

So they did not SUCCEED in implementing LVT, but they did TRY. Proving me right and you wrong.

the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal governmen

No, they did not.

I already proved they did.

They printed paper money.

When their attempt to implement LVT was unsuccessful.

The states had printed $209 million of notes, Congress $241 million, yet they drew only small amounts of revenue from taxation – Congress drew none at all.

Because they tried to introduce LVT but did not succeed in the attempt. Proving me right and you wrong.

Greedy, evil landowners refused to pay

There is a difference between refusing to pay and being unable to pay taxes.

Greedy, evil landowners were easily able to pay an LVT, had it actually been calculated and levied. The states just refused to do so.

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.

Because they had just fought a long war, and had to pay for it. Duh.

The principal purpose of the levies was to pay interest on securities, many of them bought up by speculators. In the mid-1780s, most states earmarked at least two-thirds of their tax revenue for foreign and domestic holders of the war bonds.

Because they refused to tax land.

The tax burden was magnified by a shortage of circulating coin.

There was no tax burden on landowners, who were pocketing huge gains on land speculation -- gains obtained as a result of the war everyone EXCEPT landowners was being required to pay for.

In 1785, four years after the South Carolina assembly voted to require that debts be paid in gold or silver, a newspaper writer who took the name Americanus said he had seen debtors forced to "give up £50" worth of property "to pay £10." "Who will call this Justice?" he asked.*

I certainly will. Soulless, amoral greed robots have no right to abrogate others' liberty to use the land if they aren't going to make just compensation.

State assemblies responded to the suffering by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.

So it's only "suffering" when a rich, greedy, evil landowner has to pay for what he takes from the community, not when his greed forces the landless into poverty, servitude, and starvation...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Source?

B C Campbell, Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History

Link does not work.

Interest on the debt is paid by the government, not collected by it

Yes, but It is important to note that the Federal Reserve returns the interest payments on its security holdings (less its expenses) to the U.S. Treasury.

No it doesn't. It is guaranteed a 6% return independently of expenses. And the Fed does not hold all the debt.

Consequently, when the Federal Reserve increases its bond holdings, for example, the U.S. Treasury realises an effective reduction to its debt expenses. The present value of the reduction in Treasury expenses is equal to the amount of money injected by the Federal Reserve’s open market purchase.

Financial sleight-of-hand.

I'm saying it's irrelevant when they can't profit from such actions in any case.

If landlords are not profiting by such actions, why do they do it?

They profit by it NOW because they can POCKET LAND RENT. With LVT, they can't, and can therefore only make money by providing competitive accommodation.

These are just facts you have decided never to know.

A third of homes in the private rented sector do not meet basic standards of health, safety and habitability.

Because absence of LVT makes it profitable, a situation for which your opposition to justice makes you personally responsible.

The report shows that:

A startling 33% of dwellings in the private rental sector are non-decent, meaning they do not meet basic standards of health, safety and habitability. For one-third of those living in private rental accommodation, life is lived in unsafe and unhealthy conditions below the basic minimum considered adequate in England.

And by opposing justice, you are personally responsible for keeping it that way. Therefore, every child that dies because it was being raised in unsafe and unhealthy conditions has been killed by you personally, by your conscious, deliberate decision to sacrifice it on the altar of unearned profit for rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.

Security of tenure in the private rental sector is inadequate. Tenants are afraid to complain about the poor quality of properties for fear of retaliatory evictions or arbitrary rent rises. There are no real safeguards against this practice and as many as 200,000 tenants were subject to a retaliatory eviction in 2013.

And by opposing justice, you are personally responsible for every injustice private landowners visit on their tenants.

The private rental sector is increasingly unaffordable. The cost of housing is almost double that of social housing and private tenants are increasingly unable to meet the costs. A quarter of those renting in the private rental sector need housing benefit to meet the cost of housing.

A situation for which you bear personal responsibility, because you oppose justice.

[ingliz]

In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers tried to implement the right idea: funding the federal government entirely by LVT.

Congress was denied any powers of taxation.

a kind of schoolbook exercise

Yes.

The taxes and expenses of the union were not 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.

* Timothy Pitkin (January 21, 1766 – December 18, 1847) served in the State Legislature of Connecticut in 1790, 1792, and 1794‑1805, serving as Clerk of the House 1800‑1802 and as Speaker 1803‑1805. He was elected as a Federalist to the United States Congress in the Ninth Congress; and was reëlected to the Tenth and to the five succeeding Congresses, thus serving from September 16, 1805, to March 3, 1819.

There was no tax burden on landowners

Bullshit! In 1790, 90% of the US population (total pop. 3,929,214) were farmers.

Link does not work.

Page 44.

Financial sleight-of-hand

It is what it is. All modern capitalist countries use debt money systems.

Because absence of LVT makes it profitable,

Don't be silly.

Under your scheme, when LVT makes it less profitable to rent out property, there will be a greater incentive to cut costs to increase profits, and more non-decent dwellings in the private rental sector.

every child that dies because it was being raised in unsafe and unhealthy conditions has been killed by you personally

[Truth To Power]

In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers tried to implement the right idea: funding the federal government entirely by LVT.

Congress was denied any powers of taxation.

Because in the flush of successful revolution, the Founders naively assumed they could rely on the states to be fair and honest.

a kind of schoolbook exercise

Yes.

Absurd.

The taxes and expenses of the union were not apportioned among the states according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.

Sure they were. The states just refused to pay.

There was no tax burden on landowners

Bullshit!

Fact:

In 1790, 90% of the US population (total pop. 3,929,214) were farmers.

Farming land and owning it are two entirely different enterprises, as you know perfectly well, but are disingenuously pretending you do not know. The only tax burdens on farmers were on their productive activities as farmers, not on the privilege and parasitism of landowners. An absentee landowner paid no taxes whatever, proving me right and you wrong. Again.

Link does not work.

Page 44.

That's just a repetition of an unfounded claim, not evidence for it.

In any case, it's hardly surprising that war with Britain, the trade blockade, etc. would damage the economy. Then in 1783, when the war ended, the Laki volcano in Iceland erupted massively, causing global crop failures for the next two years that hit the American colonies especially hard, as they were highly dependent on agriculture. But 41% is a nonsense figure. 20% is more like it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_h ... TH1850.JPG

Financial sleight-of-hand

It is what it is. All modern capitalist countries use debt money systems.

But I do not propose either capitalism or debt money, so you just admitted that you are merely trying to change the subject. Again.

Because absence of LVT makes it profitable,

Don't be silly.

I am informing you of the relevant facts.

Under your scheme, when LVT makes it less profitable to rent out property,

It doesn't. It only makes it less profitable -- in fact, unprofitable -- to idly pocket LAND rents. Renting out IMPROVEMENTS would be MORE profitable, because it would no longer be taxed.

there will be a greater incentive to cut costs to increase profits, and more non-decent dwellings in the private rental sector.

Nope. That's inevitably the exact, diametric opposite of the truth. You can't increase profits by cutting costs when your only source of profits is the revenue those costs enable you to obtain. Inability to pocket land rent means owners would have no choice but to compete for tenants on the basis of better improvements.

every child that dies because it was being raised in unsafe and unhealthy conditions has been killed by you personally

I'd suggest watching "Judgment at Nuremberg." The complicity of those who provide rationalizations for evil makes them culpable.

[ingliz]

That's just a repetition of an unfounded claim, not evidence for it.

Brown, Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation and the Origin of the Constitution

Fiske, The Critical Period of American History 1785-89

Flexnor, George Washington and the New Nation 1783-93

Morris, The Forging of the Union 1781-89

Nettels, The Emergence of a National Economy 1775-1815

Nevins, The American States during and after the Revolution 1775-89

Sure they were.

No, they were not.

A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable.

Inability to pocket land rent means owners would have no choice but to compete for tenants on the basis of better improvements.

Are you really that naive?

I'd suggest watching "Judgment at Nuremberg."

[Truth To Power]

That's just a repetition of an unfounded claim, not evidence for it.

Brown, Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation and the Origin of the Constitution

Fiske, The Critical Period of American History 1785-89

Flexnor, George Washington and the New Nation 1783-93

Morris, The Forging of the Union 1781-89

Nettels, The Emergence of a National Economy 1775-1815

Nevins, The American States during and after the Revolution 1775-89

So, still no actual evidence for your claim of a 41% economic contraction. Thought not.

Sure they were.

No, they were not.

I already proved they were, remember? They were apportioned by Article 8.

A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable.

And...? That the states hadn't followed through on Article 8 is not evidence that Article 8 was never intended as anything but idle words. The Founders clearly believed at the time of Confederation that the states would pay, and were dismayed when they didn't. Now it is true that a few of the Founders, most notably Hamilton, never intended the Articles to work, and did all they could to make sure they didn't.

Inability to pocket land rent means owners would have no choice but to compete for tenants on the basis of better improvements.

Are you really that naive?

There's nothing naïve about knowing some economics. You could try it.

How else are they going to make money if they can't pocket land rent? What else is anyone going to give them money for besides location and improvements?

I'd suggest watching "Judgment at Nuremberg."

Spencer Tracy delivers the climactic line: "You knew. You knew the first time you condemned to death a man whom you knew to be innocent."

Well, you know, too. You knew the first time you falsely claimed, "There is nothing inherently special about land."

[ingliz]

So, still no actual evidence for your claim of a 41% economic contraction.

If you take 1700 as the "starting point" of your analysis and compare 1776 to 1785, there is a 41% contraction

Rjenson, Economic Growth in America per capita income 1700-1840

George Rogers Taylor, American Economic Growth Before 1840: An Exploratory Essay, The Journal of Economic History Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 427-444

They were apportioned by Article 8.

No, they were not. It was much easier to count noses than to assess the value of farms and stock.

The Founders clearly believed at the time of Confederation that the states would pay

Only six weeks after the ratification of the articles, Madison proposed an amendment "to give to the United States full authority to employ their force, as well by sea as by land, to compel any delinquent state to fulfil its federal engagements." Washington approved of this measure.

A government which could not collect the taxes for its yearly budget without firing upon citizens or blockading two or three harbours would have been the absurdest political anomaly imaginable.

What else is anyone going to give them money for besides location and improvements?

A roof over their heads? The failure of housing supply to keep up with rising demand has wide social and economic implications.

Spencer Tracy delivers the climactic line...

[Truth To Power]

So, still no actual evidence for your claim of a 41% economic contraction.

If you take 1700 as the "starting point" of your analysis and compare 1776 to 1785, there is a 41% contraction

No, it was about 20%, and I already posted the relevant graph:

Rjenson, Economic Growth in America per capita income 1700-1840

See?

George Rogers Taylor, American Economic Growth Before 1840: An Exploratory Essay, The Journal of Economic History Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 427-444

Which also offers zero (0) support for your claim.

So, in order to make your self-disgrace complete, you are claiming that the decline was 41% because it was 41% of 1700's level, not 1776's?!!?



After such an outrageously disingenuous contrivance, nothing you can possibly say even matters any more. You have already refuted it all.

They were apportioned by Article 8.

No, they were not. It was much easier to count noses than to assess the value of farms and stock.

Thank you for agreeing that contrary to your claims, they had been apportioned by Article 8, and were just not easily assessed.

The Founders clearly believed at the time of Confederation that the states would pay

Only six weeks after the ratification of the articles, Madison proposed an amendment "to give to the United States full authority to employ their force, as well by sea as by land, to compel any delinquent state to fulfil its federal engagements." Washington approved of this measure.

Thank you for posting additional proof that I am right and you are wrong.

What else is anyone going to give them money for besides location and improvements?

A roof over their heads?

Nope. The roof merely enables them to use the location, for which they are willing to pay no more than the location rent. As the location rent all goes in LVT (less the UIE, which merely reduces the tenant's rent payment commensurately), the landowner who offers no more than a roof for tenants will make no profit, and will in fact lose money on the improvements he does provide.

Your first post in this thread said, and all your subsequent posts have confirmed, that you just permanently refuse to know the crucial difference between a factor in fixed supply -- which inherently provides a monopoly return -- and one in elastic supply, which returns only what competition permits.

The failure of housing supply to keep up with rising demand has wide social and economic implications.

Then why do you oppose the most efficient, effective, and only just way to make sure housing supply keeps up with demand?

[ingliz]

a few of the Founders

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Morris, Henry Lee, Henry Knox and the signers of the Constitution to name a few.

Founders on the Defects of the Articles of Confederation 1780-1787

So

I used Campbell's numbers and provided his sources*, but you can always choose someone else's. Between 1774 and 1790 GDP per capita might have dropped 18%, based on Sutch. Then again, if you believe Sylla (2011) and the 1790s recorded brisk growth rates, the Revolutionary War period could have been America’s greatest income slump ever.and the fall may have been 28% (Lindert & Williamson. 2011), 30%, based on Berry’s series. or even higher in per capita terms. Shepherd and Walton (1976) estimate commodity exports fell by a spectacular 39.1% in the Upper South, and by an even bigger 49.7% in the Lower South (Mancall et al. 2003 estimate an even larger 67%).

Whatever figure you choose it's a decline as steep or steeper than the Great Depression, and certainly longer.


* Brown, Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation and the Origin of the Constitution

Fiske, The Critical Period of American History 1785-89

Flexnor, George Washington and the New Nation 1783-93

Morris, The Forging of the Union 1781-89

Nettels, The Emergence of a National Economy 1775-1815

Nevins, The American States during and after the Revolution 1775-89

So

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

Mark Twain

Which also offers zero (0) support for your claim.

No, all my sources support my claim.

Annual rice exports 1783-85 totaled less than half the average for 1770-74, and indigo production fell off drastically with the withdrawal of the British bounty

Outside of agriculture the chief resources were the carrying trade, the exchange of commodities with England and the West Indies, and the cod and whale fisheries; and in these occupations many people had grown rich. The war had destroyed all these sources of revenue. Imports and exports had alike been stopped, so that there was a distressing scarcity of some of the commonest household articles. The enemy's navy had kept us from the fisheries. Before the war, the dock-yards of Nantucket were ringing with the busy sound of adze and hammer, rope-walks covered the island, and two hundred keels sailed yearly in quest of spermaceti. At the return of peace, the docks were silent and grass grew in the streets... By 1786, under the universal depression and want of confidence, all trade had well-nigh stopped,

Thank you for agreeing that contrary to your claims, they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

All charges of war, and all other expenses... 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

but

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.

and

A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable.

The Founders clearly believed at the time of Confederation that the states would pay,

No, they did not.

Only six weeks after the ratification of the articles, Madison proposed an amendment "to give to the United States full authority to employ their force, as well by sea as by land, to compel any delinquent state to fulfil its federal engagements."

At one moment, early in 1782, there was not a single dollar in the treasury.

monopoly return

When housing demand exceeds supply, all housing will earn economic rent by virtue of its scarcity.

the most efficient, effective, and only just way to make sure housing supply keeps up with demand

[Truth To Power]

a few of the Founders

Context chopped, mangled and manipulated to remove truth, clarity and meaning. No surprises there.

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Morris, Henry Lee, Henry Knox and the signers of the Constitution to name a few.

Of course the signers of the Constitution knew after the fact that the Articles hadn't worked. Duh.

So

Context chopped, mangled and manipulated to remove truth, clarity and meaning. No surprises there.

I used Campbell's numbers and provided his sources*, but you can always choose someone else's. Between 1774 and 1790 GDP per capita might have dropped 18%, based on Sutch. Then again, if you believe Sylla (2011) and the 1790s recorded brisk growth rates, the Revolutionary War period could have been America’s greatest income slump ever.and the fall may have been 28% (Lindert & Williamson. 2011), 30%, based on Berry’s series. or even higher in per capita terms. Shepherd and Walton (1976) estimate commodity exports fell by a spectacular 39.1% in the Upper South, and by an even bigger 49.7% in the Lower South (Mancall et al. 2003 estimate an even larger 67%).

Whatever figure you choose it's a decline as steep or steeper than the Great Depression, and certainly longer.

All of which is simply your way of admitting that you have no evidence -- none -- for your claim of a 41% economic contraction. I.e., that I am objectively right and you are objectively wrong.

Inevitably.

Which also offers zero (0) support for your claim.

No, all my sources support my claim.

No, in fact, all your sources have clearly stated that your claim is false, including the above.

Annual rice exports 1783-85 totaled less than half the average for 1770-74, and indigo production fell off drastically with the withdrawal of the British bounty

Outside of agriculture the chief resources were the carrying trade, the exchange of commodities with England and the West Indies, and the cod and whale fisheries; and in these occupations many people had grown rich. The war had destroyed all these sources of revenue. Imports and exports had alike been stopped, so that there was a distressing scarcity of some of the commonest household articles. The enemy's navy had kept us from the fisheries. Before the war, the dock-yards of Nantucket were ringing with the busy sound of adze and hammer, rope-walks covered the island, and two hundred keels sailed yearly in quest of spermaceti. At the return of peace, the docks were silent and grass grew in the streets... By 1786, under the universal depression and want of confidence, all trade had well-nigh stopped,

Thank you for agreeing that contrary to your claims, they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

All charges of war, and all other expenses... 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

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8, that I am therefore objectively right, and that you are therefore objectively wrong.

but

Inevitably.

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.

and

A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8, that I am therefore objectively right, and that you are therefore objectively wrong.

The Founders clearly believed at the time of Confederation that the states would pay,

No, they did not.

They most certainly did:

Only six weeks after the ratification of the articles, Madison proposed an amendment "to give to the United States full authority to employ their force, as well by sea as by land, to compel any delinquent state to fulfil its federal engagements."

Six weeks? Madison? Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8, that I am therefore objectively right, and that you are therefore objectively wrong.

At one moment, early in 1782, there was not a single dollar in the treasury.

<yawn>

monopoly return

When housing demand exceeds supply, all housing will earn economic rent by virtue of its scarcity.

That is economic gibberish. Demand and supply are equal at the market price. The only rent in the case is obtained -- not "earned," what a disgraceful claim -- by virtue of the subsidy given to the owner of the land, not the housing. This is proved by the fact that it is always non-house-building landowners, and never non-landowning house builders, who get rich from housing shortages.

the most efficient, effective, and only just way to make sure housing supply keeps up with demand

OK, so you admit that your intention is to further impoverish and enslave working people for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners, and you even think it's funny.

Have a nice day.

[ingliz]

no evidence

I used Campbell's numbers and provided his sources as they best suited my argument, but I could just as easily have used one of Lindert's & Williamson's estimates.

The largest estimated drop is 39 percent, based on Berry’s series and our baseline estimate

White-collar workers fared worse.

To identify the extent of the urban damage, one could start by noting that the combined share of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston in a growing national population shrank from 5.1% in 1774 to 2.7% in 1790, recovering only partially to 3.4% in 1800. There is even stronger evidence confirming an urban crisis. The share of white-collar employment was 12.7% in 1774, but it fell to 8% in 1800; the ratio of earnings per free worker in urban jobs relative to that of total free workers dropped from 3.4 to 1.5; and the ratio of white-collar earnings per worker to that of total free workers fell even more, from 5.2 to 1.7. This evidence offers strong support for an urban crisis, and it also supports the view that America had not yet recovered from the revolutionary economic disaster even by 1800.

that I am objectively right and you are objectively wrong.

No, you cannot say that as all of the numbers yours included are estimates.

It has been said of Bradshaw's Railway Guide, the indispensable companion of the traveller in England, that no man can study it for an hour without qualifying himself for an insane asylum. But Bradshaw is pellucid clearness compared with the American tables of exchange in 1786, with their medley of dollars and shillings, moidores and pistareens. The addition of half a dozen different kinds of paper created such a labyrinth as no human intellect could explore.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

Quoting Article 8 is not proof that federal taxes were apportioned according to the rule prescribed by Article 8.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

They could not be apportioned according to the rule prescribed by Article 8 as "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable".

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

Without "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands", LVT becomes an arbitrary charge imposed by the state.

Are you conceding that tax levied under Article 8 was not LVT?

The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.

economic gibberish

For someone who purportedly rejects the concept of 'perfect competition', it is odd that you depend on it so completely. Your argument falls without it.

Economic rent arises due to market imperfections.

OK, so you admit that your intention is to further impoverish and enslave working people for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners, and you even think it's funny.

[Truth To Power]

no evidence

I used Campbell's numbers and provided his sources as they best suited my argument, but I could just as easily have used one of Lindert's & Williamson's estimates.

All of which would just as clearly have proved your claim false.

The largest estimated drop is 39 percent, based on Berry’s series and our baseline estimate

Proving your claim false.

White-collar workers fared worse.

But that's irrelevant to the issue, because very few were significant landowners. And your claim is still false.

that I am objectively right and you are objectively wrong.

No, you cannot say that as all of the numbers yours included are estimates.

I can definitely say it, because your claim is falsified by every source, including all of your own sources.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

I'm not the one who claimed there is nothing inherently special about land, which is one of the sillier claims you have made in this thread -- which is full of silly claims by you.

Quoting Article 8 is not proof that federal taxes were apportioned according to the rule prescribed by Article 8.

Sure it is. Duh.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

I'm not the one who claims a land value tax, which burdens landowners exclusively, and in exact proportion to the value of their landholdings, would favor the interests of the landed rich over the landless poor. You are. In a hundred lifetimes, I could not say anything a tenth as silly as that.

They could not be apportioned according to the rule prescribed by Article 8 as "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable".

The fact that Article 8 was never implemented doesn't mean it was never written and endorsed by the Founders.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Don't be silly.

I'm not the one who claims working people are better off being forced to pay for government twice than if they only paid for it once, voluntarily, in amounts commensurate with the benefits they got from the government and the community it represents. You are. In a million years, I could not hope to say anything a thousandth as silly as that.

Without "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands", LVT becomes an arbitrary charge imposed by the state.

Nope. Flat false. No valuation of houses is needed at all, nor is any valuation needed of public lands, nor of lands that at most one person would be willing to pay to use exclusively.

Are you conceding that tax levied under Article 8 was not LVT?

Article 8 states that the tax is on land value, but requires valuation of buildings, too. There are technical reasons why, given the techniques available at the time, valuation of buildings would have been useful for calculating land value.

economic gibberish

For someone who purportedly rejects the concept of 'perfect competition', it is odd that you depend on it so completely. Your argument falls without it.

Nope. Flat false. My argument in no way depends on perfect competition.

Economic rent arises due to market imperfections.

"Economic" rent is an anti-concept designed to justify the false and absurd claim that it is working people who collect rents, not landowners. It is therefore not used in my argument. I am talking about land rent, not economic rent.

So you admit that your intention is to further impoverish and enslave working people for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners, and you even think it's funny.

[benj]

"Is Land Value Taxation the solution?"

Yes and here's why.

Fair economic system=fair distribution of the factors of production=aligned incentives=optimal economic efficiency.

All the above are one and the same thing.

Produced factors should remain private, otherwise transfers of income/capital from producers to non-producers via taxes distorts incentives.

And the value of the non-produced, Land, should be shared equally. If not it's value when capitalised into selling prices/rental income merely represents a transfer of wealth and welfare from producers to non-producers which again distorts incentives.

As Land by value is highly concentrated towards the wealthiest end of the population, a fair economic system would see a large reduction in wealth and income inequality.

Only one caveat. As Winston Churchill noted, land may be the Mother of all monopolies, but it isn't the only distortion that affects our economy.

Treating the root causes of dysfunction, rather than the symptoms via taxing income/capital and redistribution, is the correct solution.

Good things happen when we align incentives. Fairness, freedom, prosperity and peace.

It really is that simple if you've the mind to see it

[ingliz]

All of which would just as clearly have proved your claim false.

I claimed state assemblies responded to the suffering by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.

So it's only "suffering" when a rich, greedy, evil landowner has to pay for what he takes from the community,

90% of the US population (total pop. 3,929,214) were farmers.

'suffering'

Whatever figure you choose it's a decline as steep or steeper than the Great Depression, and certainly longer.

Proving your claim false.

No

But that's irrelevant to the issue, because very few were significant landowners.

You do not have to be a significant landowner to suffer in an economic depression.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Article 8 was never implemented

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Article 8 was never implemented

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Article 8 was never implemented

So you admit that your intention is to further impoverish and enslave working people for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners, and you even think it's funny.

optimal economic efficiency.

transfers of income/capital from producers to non-producers via taxes distorts incentives. Treating the root causes of dysfunction, rather than the symptoms via taxing income/capital and redistribution, is the correct solution.

an LVT doesn't stop you from supporting progressive income/consumption taxes.

[benj]

transfers of income/capital from producers to non-producers via taxes distorts incentives. Treating the root causes of dysfunction, rather than the symptoms via taxing income/capital and redistribution, is the correct solution.

an LVT doesn't stop you from supporting progressive income/consumption taxes.

[/quote]



Doesn't stop YOU Ingliz. That quote was addressed to you. Even if YOU think redistributive taxes would still be necessary, which they aren't, I'd have thought support for an LVT would be still be a no brainer for someone interested in greater equality.

You keep on selectively quoting outing out of context. Which I must admit you are the best I've come across. You should be working in Politics. You've a massive talent for sophistry, and a very good memory to keep it fed.

I'm amazed you and T2P are still going. Why? It's obvious from the start you are not interested in discussing issues, rather winning the argument by any means necessary.

Which is good sport, but 23 pages???

[ElVeeTee2BFree]

How many of those farmers were landowners? And, if they were landowners, how much was their land worth? Did you know that slaves worked on farms too? Just shows how irrelevant your "arguments" are.

Also, apportion and implement aren't synonymous.

I hope for your sake that you are trolling.

[ingliz]

How many of those farmers were landowners?

One can only guess as "a satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed, and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable".

In colonial America, a better question perhaps is how many of those farmers were voters.

For the most part, American colonists adopted the voter qualifications that they had known in England. Typically, a voter had to be a free, adult, male resident of his county, a member of the predominant religious group, and a "freeholder." A freeholder owned land worth a certain amount of money. Colonists believed only freeholders should vote because only they had a permanent stake in the stability of society. Freeholders also paid the bulk of the taxes. Other persons, as the famous English lawyer William Blackstone put it, "are in so mean a situation as to be esteemed to have no will of their own."

Becoming a freeholder was not difficult for a man in colonial America since land was plentiful and cheap. Thus, up to 75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters.

how much was their land worth?

In 1763, Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

freeholders

Towards the end of the revolutionary period counting voters to establish patterns of land ownership doesn't work. Pennsylvania required only that a male voter be a taxpayer. Vermont extended the franchise to all adult white men. There were also extensions to the franchise beyond white males. White women could vote in New Jersey until 1807, and free blacks could vote in Maryland until 1802.

In post-colonial America in the midst of an economic depression as steep or steeper than the Great Depression, who knows how many farmers were landowners. Tax rolls would suggest only 46%, but tax rolls are not to be trusted as state assemblies responded to the suffering by easing taxation. If you believe Selby, The revolution in Virginia 1775-83, who admittedly gives only the roughest of estimates for Virginia's Northern Neck in 1781, 10% of white males were large landowners, 50% were small landowners, and 10-20% were tenants. The remaining whites were agricultural labourers, free or indentured, with little property and few expectations.

small landowners

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.

The remaining whites were agricultural labourers, free or indentured, with little property and few expectations.

On farms of about one hundred acres or less, families raised livestock and grew corn and sweet potatoes for their own consumption. Because of their chronic shortage of cash, some southern yeomen, particularly younger men, hired themselves out as agricultural workers when they needed hard currency.

Did you know that slaves worked on farms too?

So cattle are farmers now? In post-colonial America, a slave was owned "like a cow or horse".

Also, apportion and implement aren't synonymous.

How could they apportion tax "in proportion to the value of all land within each State" when "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]

All of which would just as clearly have proved your claim false.

I claimed state assemblies responded to the suffering by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.

That's not the claim in question, and you know it.

So it's only "suffering" when a rich, greedy, evil landowner has to pay for what he takes from the community,

90% of the US population (total pop. 3,929,214) were farmers.

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

'suffering'

Whatever figure you choose it's a decline as steep or steeper than the Great Depression, and certainly longer.

That's not the issue and you know it. It was caused by a WAR fought on AMERICAN SOIL. OF COURSE it was going to disrupt the economy, especially with the British blockading seagoing trade with other countries. It would cause a drop in land rents, too. And while we don't have statistics, I'm sure land value also dropped: many prosperous British loyalists sold up and moved to Canada.

Proving your claim false.

No

Yes.

But that's irrelevant to the issue, because very few were significant landowners.

You do not have to be a significant landowner to suffer in an economic depression.

But you do to be hit by LVT.

Thank you for quoting additional proof that they had been apportioned by Article 8

Article 8 was never implemented

<yawn> Borrow a good dictionary, and look up "implemented" and "apportioned."

So you admit that your intention is to further impoverish and enslave working people for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners, and you even think it's funny.

You favor evil over good, so you think it is funny when evil defeats good.

optimal economic efficiency.

transfers of income/capital from producers to non-producers via taxes distorts incentives. Treating the root causes of dysfunction, rather than the symptoms via taxing income/capital and redistribution, is the correct solution.

an LVT doesn't stop you from supporting progressive income/consumption taxes.

<yawn> And while you have that borrowed dictionary, look up "tax" and "transfer."

God, you are such a waste of time.

Even if YOU think redistributive taxes would still be necessary, which they aren't, I'd have thought support for an LVT would be still be a no brainer for someone interested in greater equality.

The Marxist is only interested in greater equality if it takes the form of Procrustean leveling of the productive down to the level of his unproductive self, or lower. His only real priority is to inflict suffering on his moral and intellectual superiors so that he can forget his inferiority and feel superior to them. The ideal is to torture them physically, so that they are reduced to an animal level of function, unable to do anything but struggle, scream, and suffer. But subjecting them to constant irrational and unjust treatment works almost as well. And killing them is of course always a convenient option. Nothing makes the Marxist feel superior to the producer like killing him. That is why Marxists defend the interests of landowners against the justice of LVT: the landowner qua landowner is not a producer, so the Marxist does not need to feel inferior to him. LVT is anathema to the Marxist because it promises justice to the producers the Marxist fears and hates above all else. As we've seen in this thread, the Marxist will even take the side of landowners against workers, because the latter are producers and the former aren't.

You keep on selectively quoting outing out of context. Which I must admit you are the best I've come across. You should be working in Politics. You've a massive talent for sophistry, and a very good memory to keep it fed.

Yes, if only such talent and industry could be harnessed for some purpose other than rationalizing privilege, justifying injustice, and excusing evil...

I'm amazed you and T2P are still going. Why? It's obvious from the start you are not interested in discussing issues, rather winning the argument by any means necessary.

Which is good sport, but 23 pages???

For me, it's sparring practice. I know that when I discuss these matters extemporaneously with lying apologists for privilege, injustice and evil, I will be confronted with every manner of fallacious, absurd, and dishonest filth. So I want to be ready. Seeing it all here first helps me analyze it and prepare to demolish it.