A Philosopher’s Take on Global Basic Income: Fund It by Land Value Taxation

Post by ctdonath » Sat, Sep 16, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #13

ctdonath wrote: post #7

The despicable problem with land taxation is that it turns property from owned to rented . It allows for abuses of raising tax rates to drive people off their property. It replaced true supply-and-demand with arbitrary choices by under-informed bureaucrats, which never goes well. It is the core of gentrification problems, driving people from long-occupied homes via taxation because others pay a premium for neighbouri…

What?! Poor people can always be abused by driving up taxation. You don't need to tax their homes, you can just tax their food, water, electricity and fuel. I see a much bigger problem in land ownership encouraging concentration of capital. We should be encouraging productivity, innovation, hard work, not rent-seeking.

Post by ctdonath » Sat, Sep 16, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #22

ctdonath wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you own land, without property tax, you can become completely self sufficient: grow food, build shelter, produce power, collect water. I grew up close to that, and could have done it 100% if needed. Outright land ownership is critical to survival, independence, and productivity. Property taxes are horribly destructive.

Even if you're self-sufficient you should still pay taxes, because the government still protects your property by enforcement of laws by police.

Post by akvadrako » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:16 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #18

akvadrako wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you apply a flat rate per acre of land regardless of where it is, to the detriment of rural farmers who own many acres? No, it's the market value of the land. Probably the price would be determined in a manner similar to property tax. It seems that in our current world, it's easier to fairly determine property tax then what counts as someone's income, at least for the self-employed and investment classes.

Market value is easy. The problem is that the author wants his tax to be based on the "unimproved value" of land, rather than the market value that includes buildings and other stuff that's on and around the land. He's aiming for a kind of philosophical purity in order to be able to say that he's not going to put a tax on human effort. That's where the complexity comes in.