Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rich yet reserved people, who keep most of their money in the bank (which lends it) and are earning an income (=productive) ... will not penalized. This goes against just about every standard defense of the ability to be rich: that rich people are job creators, that they power the economy by buying things, etc. Why should we discourage them from employing people and buying things? I don't want a loan (that needs to…
An economy is driven by production, not consumption.
Georgism
331–338 of 338 posts
Re: Georgism
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Hasn't most of that happened in Asia, where they are closer to Georgism in their treatment of land?
Re: Georgism
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
LVT is least distortionary tax, because you can't create or destroy land. > Why should a low-margin supermarket which people need, occupying tons of space, pay huge taxes, while a tiny very profitable ultra-luxury boutique hotel pays only 5% of the taxes? Because the supermarket is using more land compared to the hotel. Every bit of land the supermarket owns is land you and I can't use. It's only fair that the superm…
That's an argument for pricing land according to market value, which we already have. It's not an argument for why we should rely solely on a land tax in lieu of e.g. taxes on corporate profits, income taxes, or sales tax.
I'd say there's a moral reason not to!
Is there a practical reason to tax those things? Not if the goal is to maximize government revenue!
If you tax land as high as possible -- at 100% of rent -- then it's not usually possible to increase revenues by taxing the stuff you mentioned. Doing so would almost invariably decrease the revenue the LVT raises by more than the revenue your proposed taxes would raise.
There are exceptions.
1) Certain non-traditional land like radio spectrum, minerals, pollution rights, parking, space on a congested highway, etc can and should be taxed.
2) Some luxury goods could be taxed. Whether or not they should probably depends on the situation and opinion. (By luxury goods, I mean goods that are valuable in part because other people don't have them. A cell phone is thus not a luxury good, for example, because the more people have cell phones the more useful your phone is. Luxury goods in the sense I mean are not merely "expensive" or "for rich people," though most luxury goods are.)
Re: Georgism
#334I'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.
What tax should tech companies pay then, given that the only land they really need is cheap rural land for data centers? This taxation system does make sense for land, but there's way more economic activity happening that isn't associated with land than there is that is.
Lots of tech companies are located in Silicon Valley, some of the most expensive land around...
Re: Georgism
#335The 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,…
Re: Georgism
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you're describing Pigovian taxes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
Thanks for point out Pigovian taxes! It seems to be a field of Environmental Economics.
Re: Georgism
#337May I suggest that if you've not read Henry George's thought yourself yet, you take some time with them? There are two sections of the Schalkenbach site devoted to them -- first, the books, articles and speeches themselves, and then an introduction to HG's thought, with perspectives from a number of writers, mostly recent. With the latter group is a short version of Progress and Poverty entitled "Significant Paragrap…
Marxists meanwhile hem and haw about what an aspiring Marxist should read and will hand-wave away any contradictions.
Re: Georgism
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To rent out property you must first own property. To own property you must buy property. Or inherit. Mayfair is rented out by the Duke of Westminster not because him or any or his ancestors did anything as crass as buying it but because he traces his lineage back to a mate of William the conqueror (note : not William the buyer . Conqueror. The distinction is important you see) in 1066. Broadly speaking, all land wea…
> You no doubt believe that the act of buying and selling land and working with it somehow "morally sterilizes" it. Nonsense. If that particular plot of land was stolen then the people it was stolen from are welcome to assert their claim. If they can prove that they have one, that is. A thief ("conqueror") does not through their theft obtain the rights to the property which is stolen, and cannot rightfully sell what…
The duke of westminster doesn't use the land, though, he rents it out. If use of land begets ownership, why does the claim originally stem from william the conqueror murdering a bunch of peasants rather than me renting a flat since 2005?
This idea of yours makes no sense.