Land ownership makes no sense

Land ownership makes no sense

Yet by 1797, US founding father Thomas Paine was arguing that “the earth, in its natural uncultivated state” would always be “the common property of the human race," and so landowners owed non-landowners compensation “for the loss of his or her natural inheritance.”

A century later, economist Henry George saw that poverty was rising despite increasing wealth and blamed this on our system of owning land. He proposed that land should be taxed at up to 100 percent of its “unimproved” value.

Abolishing land ownership doesn’t require either communism on one end or hunter-gathering on the other. That’s because land can be separated from the things we do on top of it, whether that’s growing crops or building tower blocks.

Under Georgism, you would pay the same tax for your home as for an equivalent vacant lot in the same location, because both your building and the vacant lot use the same amount of finite land.

Yeah, I know it's Wired but abolishing land ownership has come up before in other ways. This is just another thing pushing the idea.
But, if you do some math:
Average size of a farm in acres: 205
Average price for land by acre in New York: $2800
Average net income per acre: $1648.28
So the property value/tax of an average farm would be: $574,000
The average net income for the same farm would be: $342,842

Yes, there are currently tax reductions for farms but that negates the original argument about charging "farms to tower blocks" 100% of their unimproved value. If you get a tax break you're not paying 100%. Equally, if you still have to pay the full amount to get the percentage back, your boned as according to the New York Comptroller, farms don't make that kind of money.
Whereas the average current property tax in New York is .98% or at most just barely 2% in the state or around $12,000 for the same property.

Unless I did something wrong the numbers don't work. The other is the "immoral nature of land owning". That sounds weirdly familiar.

source one

Source two

Source three

a reply to: oddscreenname

We should all own nothing, and be happy?

I've heard that somewhere before, not sure if I like the sounds of it. I think the main concern was for livestock grazing, I mean, do you want free range meth heads running around the farms? LOL

You don't really own land or home. You own rights to it... you basically lease the land from the govt and have the ability to sell that right to someone else. Don't pay your property taxes and see how much you own your home / land....

I don't see how it would be practical for people to not have a chance to own their own land.

a reply to: oddscreenname

If homes were only taxed on the property they sit on there would be no way for the wealthy to exclude the 'riff-raff' from their neighborhoods.

a reply to: LizzidPepo

I think the main concern was for livestock grazing

No, it was the "immorality" of land owning. Though I've read Georgism would consider the cattle capital and something meant to be captured by the tax.

a reply to: oddscreenname

No it does not 'make sense'. If nobody owns anything, than anybody could walk into your home whenever they 'feel like it'.
The whole system of working for a living and getting paid for it , depends on owning/getting money/resources.

We can be 100% certain this mentality of 'it does not make sense' does not apply to the so called 'elites'. Did you know that the 1%ers own/use more than 50% of the earth's resources and land?

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: LizzidPepo

I think the main concern was for livestock grazing

No, it was the "immorality" of land owning. Though I've read Georgism would consider the cattle capital and something meant to be captured by the tax.

Don't forget the "immorality" of the natives. That good 'ol immorality sure comes in handy, except in actual practice.

I can understand the cattle being taxed as a commodity I suppose, or the profit from the sale of them.

What is the benefit of not owning land? On the surface it sounds like a bad idea. I would rather subsidize farms and ranches than give control of all land to the government, they are terrible at land/resource management.

a reply to: Edumakated

You never own anything unless you have the Governmental power of a standing army to back it. Not even your own life.

a reply to: nugget1

If homes were only taxed on the property they sit on there would be no way for the wealthy to exclude the 'riff-raff' from their neighborhoods.

$129 yearly tax is cool and all but look back at the farm figures. How long is that farm going to be in business? Or how much more is it going to raise the price of it's products? Pay it's employees?
That's just one example.

a reply to: LizzidPepo

Yeah. What set of morality are we pushing?

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: LizzidPepo

Yeah. What set of morality are we pushing?

It's starting to appear that there wouldn't be any morality at all, if not for immorality.

a reply to: Elton

It sounds like jealousy turned into policy. You have something I don't and the ability to get it so I need to change the rules in my favor

a reply to: Elton

I would rather subsidize farms and ranches than give control of all land to the government

The majority of farms and ranches have a symbiotic relationship with the government already. Even small farms are being regulated, though not as severely as the large ones.

It's through subsidies that control was given to the government, which comes at a price; obedience.

originally posted by: Edumakated
You don't really own land or home. You own rights to it... you basically lease the land from the govt and have the ability to sell that right to someone else. Don't pay your property taxes and see how much you own your home / land....

I don't see how it would be practical for people to not have a chance to own their own land.

I grew up as a child believing my Native America grandmother when she said that man can never own the land. That is was here before man came and it will be here when man is gone.

Then I grew up. I bought land, and I built a house. And found out that she was right.

I've got 130+ acres and it doesn't make me a dime.
Costs a fortune in interest and taxes every year actually...


Tell me again how it doesn't make sense- this is the only freedom we've got left in America.

a reply to: oddscreenname

Property taxes suck for sure.

Owning several acres, and every year property taxes go up because of morons from Cali moving in jacking up prices. Then the requirements of having property insurance in case one dip squirt decides to wander through and get hurt.

Yeah it makes no sense anymore unless there’s a direct ROI. Selling it is soon gonna be a bigger because people aren’t going to be afford that 18% mortgage soon to come.

So, what have we learned from this discussion?

Taxation is theft.

The politics of envy sells.

The government has an addiction to overstepping it's bounds.

Good chat lads/ladies, glad we could get to the bottom of these issues. Now, what to do about it?

Seems like the people actually making sense in this thread are the ones that actually own land

I still don't see the benefit to the individual or to society, just some appeals to not own land anymore.
The arguments (in favor of not owning land) have pushed me in the direction that the taxes on land should be lowered or ended; I've seen no arguments that lead me to think we should give up on land ownership itself.