Live data from Hacker News

Georgism

en.wikipedia.org

141–150 of 338 posts

Re: Georgism

#141
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hold an annual auction for the exclusive rights to the property that the tax will be derived from. The current owner can choose to keep the rights and pay the tax or they can choose to sell the exclusive rights to the highest bidder who must pay and then becomes the holder of the exclusive use rights and the new owner would then also pay the tax based on the known value. This might also usher out IP trolls and IP…

This will not help determine the true price of IP, as such a system will be endlessly exploited by bad faith actors.

> exploited by bad faith actors

What? How?

Re: Georgism

#142

All income should be taxed the same. We should move to a a progressive tax system with zero deductions, eliminate capital gains, and inheritance taxes. Make the top tax rate of over $5M be 54%. We already know the effective tax rate for each bracket. Once we factor in the additional tax revenue from the top bracket we can adjust the other rates. I would consider a true capital gain exception. For the investment in ne…

> All income should be taxed the same.

Why?

There's a big difference morally between earned and unearned income.

Re: Georgism

#143
post #9

The founding father of the Republic of China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, was heavily influenced by Georgism. He believed all income derived from land, including appreciation of the land, should be heavily taxed. He incorporated it into three principle of the people, which is the cornerstone Kuomintang ideology. But nobody would argue Taiwan is a Georgism heaven right now. Why? Rich and political powerful people own the land. G…

Doesn't Taiwan (in common with other Asian countries) mostly allocate land to the private sector via long-term leases, as opposed to ownership of indeterminate duration? That would be enough to regard it as quite Georgist.

Leasehold land is mostly a thing in communist countries that claim to temporarily implement capitalism.

Re: Georgism

#144
post #122
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be true in a perfect world with 0 impediments to social mobility. A socioeconomic "frictionless vaccum" of sorts. In the real world, social mobility is far from perfect.

Assume a perfectly spherical farmer in a frictionaless socioeconomic vacuum... sounds like physics.

Physics before computers and differential equations

Re: Georgism

#145
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This assumes that the farmer has to remain a farmer. How does it assume that?

Otherwise it wouldn't be a monopoly and the farmer wouldn't have to accept the offer. The farmer, or rather, the human, can source resources from other markets and sell goods or services that don't depend on farmland. Once that happens, and nobody accepts the high price, the landlord has to lower the price until somebody accepts his offer.

Well no. Becoming a farmer takes years, and our society needs to keep more or less the same number of farmers.

Re: Georgism

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rather than nationalize land outright, the single taxers would levy a 100 percent tax on the annual land rent — the annual income from the site — which amounts to the same thing as outright nationalization." --Murray Rothbard Georgism is reasonably well known among free-market enthusiasts and libertarians.

Rothbard's error: under land nationalization, state actors decide who uses the land; under single tax, who uses the land is determined by auction.

Actually, no. Land in the PRC is under state ownership, but except for exceptions that would tall under eminent domain here, it is mostly priced by auction, outside of agriculture.

In any case, public land ownership is not in conflict with rent auctions.

Re: Georgism

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of this tax type is encouraging efficiency. Tech companies are usually efficient, and taxing them less increases their efficiency even more. At the same time their harmful effects should be regulated (GDPR is an example of such regulation). Countries and states that let tech companies thrive are winning the race for capital.

The point of taxes is absolutely not to encourage efficiencies. The point of taxes is to fund the state in order to provide for defense and palliate the ills of capitalism.

I didn't write about the point of taxes, but about the point of a type of taxation. A government can collect the same amount of tax with different rules and procedures.

I agree with you, providing defense and protecting real capitalism, stopping oligarchies/long term monopolies from forming is important, to be able to have a return on investment on the taxed capital in the country.

As I wrote before, countries are competing for investor money, that's why it's important how they collect and distribute taxes. The counterforce is usually corruption inside the political system though.

Re: Georgism

#149
post #4

Back in a different life, I worked on the Lyons Inquiry which looked at English Local Government finances. Final report was issued in 2007[1]. As part of the work we had to look into Land Value Taxes as a supplement/alternative to Council Tax and Business Rates. There's nothing wrong with the idea. The big issues were mainly around introducing a new tax system and the massive upheavals and uncertainties businesses an…

Why tax capital instead if income? The reason to do so is because it reduces inequality and leads to a fairer society.

Well, if you tax potential capital (like house prices), then gentrification is the consequence. Think somebody living in a modest house mixed neighbourhood. Rich ppl buying houses there, property tax shoot so high (because the small house is now worth millions) that the person has to sell. As far as I understand that happened in Vancouver.

Not sure if it leads to a fairer society. (of course one could argue it is fair for a not so rich person not to live in a rich area :-) )

Re: Georgism

#150

I've yet to see a single valid objection as to why LVT (Land Value Tax) should not be the primary tax, yet it's nowhere to be found in the political dialogue. Such a shame that the majority of the tax burden instead falls on the working class while the landowners get a free ride.

Don't know if you'll consider these valid, but here are some critiques of the LVT and Georgism: - https://mises.org/wire/murray-rothbard-and-henry-george - https://mises.org/library/single-tax-economic-and-moral-impl... - https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/a_search-theore.htm... The best criticism I've found, however, is here: https://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/Critique%20of%20Georgism.... . It's from a more ma…

Thanks for the articles providing feedback to georgist ideas - I've read some of these but some are new to me.

The authors seem not to understand the topic unfortunately and have to use long prose as they are trying to wrap their head around it.

The core problem and idea for solution is actually quite simple. Let me condense the topic into a tweet or two.

---

Problem: You have a naturally occuring resource which is scarce and which nobody created. How do you allocate it to humans?

Solution: Georgist simply say you can use an auction granting you possession for some amount of time instead of giving you time unlimited rights just because you were first to ask to use it.

---

This is not a theory as it is applied in many systems such as DNS allocation or electromagnetic spectrum allocation. Georgists point out that similar allocation problem is for "land" (think location) and the same auction mechanism can be applied.

Land was considered abundant in the past, especially as new continents were being discovered. Therefore nobody though about allocation, same as nobody considers allocation of air. If air got severely polluted (say by radioactivity) and only small fraction remained usable for humanity, you can be assured that the same allocation problem would exist for air.

After discovering all continents on Earth land ceased to be abundant and now requires a proper allocation mechanism. Otherwise landlord monopolies will continue piling up profits because of their luck in winning the infinitely durable possession rights allocated years, decades and centuries ago in badly structured auction.

Either we start inhabiting new planets or we solve problem of allocation of important scarce resources.

What's funny - you solve this allocation problem and many societal problems disappear as if by magic. Somehow this suggests that land allocation is a major root cause of society.

That's why Georgists dwell on it so much. You should start solving problems from the most serious ones with high impact.

Post reply on HN