Land ownership makes no sense

Makes sense when you own a chunk, trust me.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: oddscreenname

I can't believe an acre of land in New York is only selling for $2800. If you find an acre down here in Louisiana for $15000 then you're hitting the jackpot.

Yeah, you can get undeveloped land that used to be farmland here for about 100K for a 5 acre carve out. So, about 20K an acre but it is not like you can just buy one acre at that price.

a reply to: oddscreenname

Sorry

Misinterpreted your previous post

a reply to: oddscreenname

What's the limit?

Whatever and however much they can handle without hurting anyone.

If people are buying their product/service then the product/service is benefitting the community. Win-win!

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

That's Paulian "law".

Our country was founded upon Natural Law.

If you want to know more, I wrote this with quotes and links -- years ago --

Nature's Law: Inalienable Rights vs Civil Rights; Constitutional Republic vs Democracy

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: LizzidPepo
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

Ummm...well...in all reality...your just leasing your home...or land...from daddy.gov...

Try not paying your yearly rent and see if they don't come and take it...

Serf...

YouSir

Exactly why are property taxes yearly? It should be a one time tax when you initially purchase it. It's a commodity like a car, tv, oven anything.
Yearly property taxes is theft plain and simple.

Land ownership makes no sense

It does when you sell to an out of state developer and with that money you can retire and live large; especially when you keep the oil and gas leases. That old dry land farm finally paid off.

a reply to: oddscreenname

That's what Stalin and Mao Thought ............


Hmm........ This Thread should be Interesting.......*)

originally posted by: olaru12

Land ownership makes no sense

It does when you sell to an out of state developer and with that money you can retire and live large; especially when you keep the oil and gas leases. That old dry land farm finally paid off.

Or keep the water rights if you are sitting on top of a large aquifer.

If one doesn't own land one cannot develop or invest in it lest someone else comes along and takes what you planted or demolishes it with ideas of their own. It's not a perfect arrangement but far preferable to the kind of anarchy we would see in a free society. Tribal societies acted together in concert for communal purposes negating the need for ownership. If we could establish tribal societies we could live that way too. Good luck getting that group together.

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....

This.

You beat me to it.

a reply to: oddscreenname

The reality is, no one "owns" anything. Can't take it with you, those you leave it to will lose it, sell it or have it taken away...nothing will change until "The Crown" relinquishes it's holdings.

originally posted by: GopiGrl
a reply to: oddscreenname

The reality is, no one "owns" anything. Can't take it with you, those you leave it to will lose it, sell it or have it taken away...nothing will change until "The Crown" relinquishes it's holdings.

What’s the old adage, the more things you own, the more it actually owns you.
When I was a kid I used to be able to pack up all of my belongs in less than one hour and bug out. Kinda miss those days.

a reply to: oddscreenname

Oh, it makes plenty of sense. There is nothing immoral about it--it's simply the rule of law. Are you against the fact that some people have a bunch of acres at their disposal? Don't be, then. Jealousy isn't proactive. You're quoting Paine somewhat out of context, here. He merely argued for limited government and personal liberty.

This brings me to the wildly biased and socialist views in your first link: "The earth is a shared inheritance, and profiting off a common resource is just wrong." is a terrible headline for a partisan article. It sounds like quite the opinion to have as a non-landowner. Using the 'logic' in this opinion piece, one could justify living without working or contributing at all. It takes what Paine stood for entirely out of context, which isn't a surprise, seeing as he was misunderstood while he was alive, too.

Here's the fact of the matter: In today's day and age, with the economy being what it is, it's going to be very easy for the have-nots to get angry at those who have. Even more so than usual. It's not morally correct to do so. Not only that, one must come to terms with some key points: One, owning land is possible if you buy it in a place where the price to own land is inexpensive and then deal with the financial strain that entails; Two, owning land in a spot that is lucrative is going to cost a lot of money, especially due to rising interest rates; Three, jealousy is at the root of the disagreement.

That is similar to someone being against land ownership simply because they do not own land. Even the Indians owned land, despite their refusal to deem their usage as ownership (ie. it's just semantics and they technically owned land). They fought ruthlessly against one another over territorial disputes, and that's part of the reason they lost so badly to the invasion of the settlers. Had they united, they would have put up a better resistance.

You sound like you're against being jealous, which I applaud--but the whole premise your post is based off of is rooted in envy. That's the unfortunate truth here. The idealistic 'truth' that the globe is 'shared' and a 'resource for all' is super cute and all as an idea, but if you take one glance at third world countries, that should be enough to make a person stop it with the nonsense. Yes, the distribution of global wealth is unequal. That isn't going to change--poverty is going to exist until Jesus comes back, according to the Bible. I don't care if you're a Christian or not, the existence of poverty as a fact is simply logical. Greed exists, as does evil. Just look at Agenda 21. What about the eugenics movement (that is still alive and well in almost every corner of society, unfortunately)?

Here, look at this from one of your 'sources': "What ties these options together—and what will unite the successful systems of the future—is that they give people secure access to land and let them profit from improving the land, but they don’t let people profit off the mere existence of a common resource that belongs to everyone and no one." I love how your source here lacks external citations, entirely. Anyway, things like that only 'work' in developing countries where land is being given to people to grow engineered crops that won't die due to drought etc. In Sudan, some farmers are being paid to improve the land. So yeah, that sort of thing happens, but even when it does it isn't this big social change movement for first-world countries. It's not useful here. That's because of large-scale systems and technology and values in society.

Ever since society moved to supporting large-scale systems, discussions like the ones the founding fathers had become far less applicable. Globalization is a fact of life and it isn't going to stop. The flattening of the world's barriers has already happened and outsourcing is commonplace. I suppose, I understand why you made the thread, but what is the actual point? You use New York as an example, but that doesn't account for the nearly free land you could buy if you move to Alaska.

I guess I think this is pointless and I'm trying to make sense of your original post to no avail. I think that the philosophers and politicians you quote are being taken out of context, in part because what they said doesn't apply to the current situation at all.

Abolishing land ownership sounds completely ridiculous. It also sounds like a great way to destroy any national security and border security. Essentially, it's a great way to allow terrorist groups and drug cartels and other 'bad guys' to run amok. So, no, it's not fiscally or socially responsible and is an absolutely terrible idea made by someone who only cares about feelings and not logic.

I could go on and on, and I'm sorry if I sound snippy, but I'm just confused by your intention and appalled by the writing in the Wired article. It's completely an illegitimate source.

So, oddscreenname, if you want to make a point please go find research studies that have actual data and ANOVAs and link them. These 'sources' of yours don't make any sense. As others have said, these are disjointed and poorly worded 'appeals' to not own land 'because land owning bad'.

That isn't a persuasive argument at all and I'm going to hazard a guess that you aren't sure of what you're talking about. You don't even have a thesis statement. Seriously, I don't care what your opinion is, if you write me a Bloom's taxonomy-style piece then I'm going to actually give your argument the time of day. Truth is, you don't have an argument and any argument posed in the 'sources' is laughable due to ignoring the facts and also due to not citing any data. There's nothing but opinion after opinion after opinion: No solid facts to point to. Simply put, what you posted is meaningless and isn't even an appeal to not own land. It's a half-statement and a lure to get people talking. Jehan Azad and Uri Bram, the authors of the "wired" article, wrote a clickbait 'article' that lacks credibility. It has no citations. You know what's immoral and wrong? Plagiarism. They don't even cite where they got the Thos. Paine quote from. Nothing. They did no work and whipped the article out of their rear-ends. It has zero thought behind it and no effort. If I were a teacher, I'd give them a F for plagiarism and a D if they did cite sources. It must have taken them less than a half hour to write. It's bad.

Like I said, go get me a research study from Academia, JSTOR, or EbscoHost or something, please. Then we can have an actual chat once you figure out what your opinion is. Because OP, you don't even have an opinion. You didn't have to do any math at all--the math you needed to do was an ANOVA. The ANOVA used in a research study, based on the data gathered. It's statistics. You'd need to get them from more places than New York because your math has zero validity and thus your post has no point. You can do it on your own, but you're going to need to write a research study and do an ANOVA. Otherwise, I don't care how much math you do, you can't conclude anything with the information you gave because you simply didn't give enough information, explanation, or data in general.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way--my reply is also meant to help others in this thread who are pointlessly trying to discuss something when there was literally nothing provided to discuss. There was plenty to rip apart, though

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

interesting? Well I hope my reply is. The OP provided literally nothing to discuss at all. I ripped apart the 'source material' so I hope that's interesting enough for you.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Good luck indeed. However, tribal societies still technically owned the land because of territories.

Ownership existed, but in a different form. Anyway, the OP needs actual data and legitimate sources or a thesis statement. I don't believe the OP argued for anything at all. The OP itself is vague and much is taken out of context. I went full-send and ripped apart the sources in my response, which you might find entertaining.

a reply to: rukia

Triggered much?

My comments from the OP.

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.

The sources AGAINST were state of New York Comptroller sources. The point of the topic was, again, read my comments.

Like I said, go get me a research study from Academia, JSTOR, or EbscoHost or something, please. Then we can have an actual chat once you figure out what your opinion is. Because OP, you don't even have an opinion. You didn't have to do any math at all--the math you needed to do was an ANOVA. The ANOVA used in a research study, based on the data gathered. It's statistics. You'd need to get them from more places than New York because your math has zero validity and thus your post has no point. You can do it on your own, but you're going to need to write a research study and do an ANOVA. Otherwise, I don't care how much math you do, you can't conclude anything with the information you gave because you simply didn't give enough information, explanation, or data in general.

Again, triggered much? Show your work, then. I used simple math to point out that Georgian wouldn't work for a farm using easily obtainable stats. You show me were Georgism WILL work using whatever you want.

I'm not sure what you ripped apart.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

interesting? Well I hope my reply is. The OP provided literally nothing to discuss at all. I ripped apart the 'source material' so I hope that's interesting enough for you.

Very . Thanks ..............*)

originally posted by: lordcomac
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.

Considering the Government owns the SUPER DEEDS to the entire country, all you are doing is renting the land as long as the Gov wants to let you do so for the rent(tax) they want for it.
We peons do not own anything really related to land in this country. Thanks to the greedy politicians who made sure we cant really own land anymore. A personal deed,is ALWAYS deemed secondary to the Super Deeds. Its how they can take your land if need be without compensation.

Just some less than creative types trying to figure out how to collect more tax dollars.

a reply to: oddscreenname

originally posted by: 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.

You are taxed on the land in a separate assessment which is typically much higher than the home value.