Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Georgism

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 338 posts

Re: Georgism

#21

Post by acd »

I think commons like fish in the ocean and air quality in cities should be priced. If of you fish its not free you pay to the country whos fish you fish. If the fish is extinct or heavily MSC on the red list the price is sky high in the millions this is to protest the species and our eco system so future generations can enjoy that fish.

By pricing eco systems and sustainable common resources. We avoid tragedy of the commons where few extract all value from common resources for free.

Ie such a new economic system would price the rain forest at its true value to humans and earth eco systems.

Carbo emissions would also be priced differently.

Tradegy of the commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Re: Georgism

#22

Post by roenxi »

JSavageOne wrote: post #14
chii wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why there is still so much poverty even while there has been so much progress there's been an objective improvement to the % of people in poverty over the past few centuries. It's just that there's an even larger improvement to those who were rich, relative to the improvements to the poor. If you had a choice, you would choose to be poor today, than to be poor a century or two ago.

> If you had a choice, you would choose to be poor today, than to be poor a century or two ago. The classic false dichotomy that somebody always feels the need to point out in justifying the status quo.

The status quo is a jawdroppingly fast and totally unprecedented reduction in poverty [0]. If my goal were to reduce poverty; my strategy would be to defend the status quo.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Re: Georgism

#23

Post by [deleted] »

alexmingoia wrote: post #11

The problem with georgism is that “unimproved value” is a non-market price. It’s just made up by whoever is appointed assessor. Georgism conflates made up “value” with market “value”. Ultimately some person has to assess the value of the unimproved land, meaning someone anointed to write down whatever number they want. Value is subjective. There is no such thing as “unimproved land value”, unless you’re talking about…

[deleted]

Re: Georgism

#24

Post by oDot »

JSavageOne wrote: post #17

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.

It actually makes much more sense to use a uniform sales tax:

(1) If you spend more, you're taxed more. Obviously this is better for poorer people, who spend less, but also for rich yet reserved people, who keep most of their money in the bank (which lends it) and are earning an income (=productive). Both will not penalized.

(2) It's much hard to raise, because people will just stop buying stuff, which is much easier than quitting a job to not pay income tax

(3) Being uniform, it doesn't choose favorites. Everything is taxed the same

Re: Georgism

#25

Post by alexmingoia »

JSavageOne wrote: post #17

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.

Land value (like all value) is subjective. There is no inherent value to land. What one person is willing to pay is not the same for everyone. Appointing someone to imagine a price for the purposes of taxation doesn't change this fact.

Re: Georgism

#26

Post by revnode »

> The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value. Georgists argue that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes (for example, on income, trade, or purchases) that are unfair and inefficient.

Fine in theory, the reality is that you get nailed for property taxes AND income taxes AND sales taxes AND everything else. If a government CAN tax it, it will and will not restrain itself.

Re: Georgism

#27

Post by [deleted] »

alexmingoia wrote: post #11

The problem with georgism is that “unimproved value” is a non-market price. It’s just made up by whoever is appointed assessor. Georgism conflates made up “value” with market “value”. Ultimately some person has to assess the value of the unimproved land, meaning someone anointed to write down whatever number they want. Value is subjective. There is no such thing as “unimproved land value”, unless you’re talking about…

[deleted]

Re: Georgism

#28

Post by andruby »

nabla9 wrote: post #20
alexmingoia wrote: post #11

The problem with georgism is that “unimproved value” is a non-market price. It’s just made up by whoever is appointed assessor. Georgism conflates made up “value” with market “value”. Ultimately some person has to assess the value of the unimproved land, meaning someone anointed to write down whatever number they want. Value is subjective. There is no such thing as “unimproved land value”, unless you’re talking about…

There is brilliant way to solve it so that value and market-value meet. Keep the land always in market. It's called Common Ownership Self-Assessed Tax (COST). Land owner would self-assess the value of assets they possess, pay a tax on that value. The owner would be required to sell the asset to anyone willing to purchase them at this self-assessed price. If you value the land high for any reason and want to keep it,…

That would mean anyone who has enough money can buy the land that people live on just to harass them.

It’s an interesting idea, and I like it in principal, but I also like living in my house on my land knowing that I need to give permission before someone can buy it.

Re: Georgism

#29

Post by blahbhthrow3748 »

oDot wrote: post #24
JSavageOne wrote: post #17

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.

It actually makes much more sense to use a uniform sales tax: (1) If you spend more, you're taxed more. Obviously this is better for poorer people, who spend less, but also for rich yet reserved people, who keep most of their money in the bank (which lends it) and are earning an income (=productive). Both will not penalized. (2) It's much hard to raise, because people will just stop buying stuff, which is much easier…

Sales tax fails to capture the accumulation of capital, so (1) is kind of bogus. If you make 100 billion dollars and invest it you and several generations of your family coild live comfortably without ever working and your tax burden would only depend on your spending.

A sales-only tax incentivized rent seeking, basically, because the rentiers pay the same taxes as the renters while accumulating capital.

Re: Georgism

#30

Post by travisporter »

acd wrote: post #21

I think commons like fish in the ocean and air quality in cities should be priced. If of you fish its not free you pay to the country whos fish you fish. If the fish is extinct or heavily MSC on the red list the price is sky high in the millions this is to protest the species and our eco system so future generations can enjoy that fish. By pricing eco systems and sustainable common resources. We avoid tragedy of the…

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent non-profit organization which sets a standard for sustainable fishing.
Post reply on HN