In that case is anyone else willing to view Liberal in exchange for a photo of myself wearing a dress?
I'm a Polandball!
Gah, again with this crap? Just had to come in and ruin all the fun, didya? Okay, when I get back from my daily dealings, I'll upgrade it to two talking marks and two squares like a good and politically correct little forumite.
It would've been REALLY unwise of the Jews to trust me in the first place, phaha. I mean, really.
..
You know tommy I was gonna sleep, then this happened.Update should be up within a couple of hours
May I take the deal?
I will probably vote National Front if I can't, if only to give Contra his chance. (And because the Tories should be much less stable with competition on their right!)
I gave one vote to Enewald, I may give one to Antonine or Contra
[SNIP]
3. Yes, but the question is, if certain area X has no land on sale, and does not really produce anything, and cannot be compared to any other part of the country, how do you define the land value tax there? Throw a number from the hat?
The productivity of farmland also varies, even quite a lot locally, not to talk about warmer areas and colder areas, too much rain, too little rain, fertility etc...
Furthermore, prices of land are in constant change, following millions of variables that keep the price in motion. Every price we can see, reflects a historical value of the good.
If you have a swamp in the middle of nowhere, the government decides the swamp is worth this or that, how would you pay for it? Sell the swamp for someone? And if no one wants to buy a swamp in the middle of nowhere?
And land in cities is heavily influenced by governments, the actions of the governments are the real reason why some areas have far higher prices than what they would have under normal circumstances. So first the governments inflate the price of the land (by preventing it from reaching a natural equilibrium), and then smash a heavy tax upon it? The tax will not be paid by landlord, rather he increases the rents for the inhabitants. The poorer ones will get kicked out, and the rest start looking for housing elsewhere, decreasing the value of the homes from where they are moving from, and increasing the value of land where they are moving to. The market will be heavily distorted. The rich who can pay, have little incentives to react to the change, unless they simply sell their land and move abroad. So the poor suffer once again most, thanks to government making taxes up that are not targeted at the poor, but still result in the poor having to suffer most as a reaction.
You didn't really think this through again?
It's ok, you are not the first fool to think taxing land is a good answer...
You may definitely take the deal - one vote for the Liberals and a photo of Antonine wearing a dress and dressed as a prostitute will appear
You can still value land - there's an entire industry (estate agents) devoted to it as a starting point. And given that a swamp would have a negligible unimproved value you would have to pay hardly any tax on it.
Yes, land in urban areas is heavily influenced by government actions. Government spending on things like infrastructure increase it's value and it is only fair that landowners pay a tax on this increase in wealth which they have not lifted a finger to achieve. And landlords will not be able to increase rents paid by tenants because free market competition will ensure that rent remains around a static level because you can't raise the rents if there are other properties going cheaper. Honestly Enewald, you of all people forgetting about the free market - I'm shocked.
Not to mention that if rents become too high then tenants will be forced to move out and landlords will be paying tax on property which they have no income coming in from, forcing them to sell and therefore correcting their distortion of the market.
The movement of people will not increase or decrease the value of land because the tax is on the unimproved value of the land rather than the income it can yield after accounting for the things built upon it.
And yes, the rich can pay and either will pay, thereby allowing the income tax burden on ordinary people to be reduced, or won't pay and will sell their land, introducing more fluidity into the property market and ending the situation where 90% of the land is owned by 1% of the population - either way, the country wins.
And then we got the Arab states attacking Israel when they became independent. So I believe that solution is dofficult Also non Jews are allowed to be citizens in Israel. That is better than for example the UAR where they openly discriminate and oppress their own population, like just for not falling under the correct muslim branch or sect
The estate agents do not form the prices, the prices of land are formed by the demand and supply meeting at an equilibrium. Estate agents are just there to help the supply meet demand. Estate agents cannot create true information about the value of some land, the price is still established between the actual seller and the actual buyer.
But according to you, one should still pay for a swamp that has no real profits to its owner, and that no one wants. Simply because some bureaucrat 1000km away decided he wanted more income, so he could get a higher wage.
Ha, what a fallacy. So in theory if you build a road through Sahara, every piece of land adjourning the road has now a higher value compared to the rest of Sahara? Because someone built infra near? :rofl:
The price of the land increases ONLY AND ONLY IF the demand keeps rising while supply does not; the real reason why a price rises.
Built a road in Antarctic, no one will still want to buy the land near the road! The demand stays at ZERO.
The infra in itself does not increase prices, but it can affect consumer preferences.
Lets say there is a 5% land tax given to every piece of land. The tax increase will be fully paid by the land owners, or if the land is rented, by those who are paying the rent. Unless of course people choose to rather become homeless than pay the rent. (some might have to, if they are already living on the limit of their income). Again the poor suffer most.
There is no free market competition if you just distorted the competition by levying a tax on land, the market reacts in a way that it would not do under free competition!
No, the landlord will kick the poorest guy out, and sell it to a higher bidder. Again, you can build an entire huge pretty town in the middle of nowhere, but if there is no demand, the land will still have a value of ZERO!
Again I state, the policies you advocate only result in the poor suffering much more.
