CAN'T CLEAN YOUR ROOM IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

YEAH. RIGHT ON, OP. I'M NOT OP, BTW.

These people, like all leftists, fundamentally misunderstand what a 'right' is.

Something being a 'right' means that that the state can not prevent you from exercising __________. In the case of housing, this would mean that they can't stop you from purchasing/possessing/renting property.

A 'right' does NOT mean that the state must provide it to you. The state functions off of the taxes collected on other citizens, and it is absolutely preposterous to claim that you have the right to someone else's property.

Any public works by the state, such as a public healthcare system, are a privilege. Don't flatter yourself by claiming you are entitled to your neighbors' money.

File: THumPfairtax.png (22KB, 507x383px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 507x383px

>>126914768
>The state functions off of the taxes collected on other citizens, and it is absolutely preposterous to claim that you have the right to someone else's property

Agreed. Abolish the income tax and implement a consumption tax, not exceeding 20%.

File: billbo.jpg (44KB, 400x252px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x252px

>>126915319
No tax but one on land value

landlords horde unearned wealth and siphon tax dollars from productive members of society

>>126915534
>No tax but one on land value

would the revenue be enough to maintain the strongest military? would it afford basic necessities for everyone?

>>126914768
Typically the former is called a negative right and the latter a positive right (when something is provided) to distinguish the two. The big question is then whether positive rights are worth upholding in a society, and what are the economic ramifications of such policies.

File: propertyrights.jpg (517KB, 1637x866px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1637x866px

>>126914768
All men have as much a right to the land as they do to breath or to the fruits of their labor

Locke understood this

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

—Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33

>Food
>Water
>Housing
>Clothing
>Physical Care
>Mental Care
>Education
That's seven, can leftists even fucking count?

>>126915800
it would depend on how the people decided to spend the revenues but in my opinion funding based on a land tax rather than that on consumptive or productive activities is the most just.
>. Estimates suggest
that this 1.89 billion acres of land are collectively worth approximately $23 trillion in
2009 (current prices), with 24% of the land area and $1.8 trillion of the value held by
the federal government.

https://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/new-estimates-of-value-of-land-of-the-united-states-larson.pdf

>>126916185
assuming you start the "One Tax Party", what are your protections for the owner passing the cost onto the consumer?

File: Untitled.png (964KB, 1518x1058px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 1518x1058px

>>126912501
lol that symbolism. i wonder who made this movement up...

>>126916642
They couldnt

The more inelastic in supply a good or service, the more the burden of any cost is borne by the producer.
Any basic text book on economics will confirm this.
As land is everything not supplied by human effort, it's supply is therefore perfectly inelastic. So, any extra costs, like taxes are paid 100% from rental income, or selling prices.
Everyone tries to charge as much as they can for any good or service. If someone tries to charge more for something that is elastic in supply, someone will come along and undercut them, reducing it to it's cost only price.
With something inelastic like land, that cannot happen. The price is set purely by demand. Landowners are already getting the maximum the market is prepared to pay in terms of rents or selling prices.
We can see this in real life. Selling prices are only capitalised rents. Rises in interest rates lower house prices, therefore rental income must be lower too. Rises in taxes have the same effect.
Instead if imagining the landlord or seller paying it, imagine the tenant or buyer pays it.
For the tenant it will reduce his disposable income buy the same amount as the tax, thus reduce the amount they can spend on housing by the same amount too.
This is the same for buyers. An LVT reduces the amount they can afford to borrow by the same amount as the tax, reducing house prices by it's capitalised value.

File: commonvsstateprop.jpg (778KB, 1695x961px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1695x961px

LTV is not communism fyi

>>126917458
>>126917323

One Tax Party in 2020?

File: henry-georges-quotes-1.jpg (74KB, 554x336px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 554x336px

>>126918522
The paradigm needs to shift.

You can be a Geo-libertarian or a Geo ancap or a Geo green

Henry George and his ideas have been systemically pulled out of American thinking.
http://masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo-classical_Stratagem.CV.pdf