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

91–100 of 338 posts

Re: Georgism

#91

Post by MiroF »

CydeWeys wrote: post #76
MiroF wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Land" for George is just things you can rent-seek on and are fixed in supply, that includes stuff like intellectual property, etc. > real estate/rents/leasing is perhaps 15% but most of that is related to the value of buildings, not the value of land. Not at all clear that most of that is related to the value of the building and also you conveniently neglect to mention that that is the largest share of GDP out of an…

How do you determine the value of intellectual property if not by looking at how much income is actually being derived from said IP? And at that point, don't you just have the same income-based corporate taxation that we already have, with extra steps?

> How do you determine the value of intellectual property if not by looking at how much income is actually being derived from said IP?

I agree that determining the value of IP is difficult. Georgists would probably advocate that there is no reason for IP to be in private hands in the first place, nor any need for a system of IP.

Alternatively, you could give temporary ownership of the IP to the creator (like we already do, except without the absurd lengths of time), then when that expires, put it up for auction to determine the pricing, then tax based on that.

Re: Georgism

#92

Post by toohotatopic »

andrepd wrote: post #79
toohotatopic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that the farmer has to remain a farmer. This can be true for one generation, but the next generation can choose another profession. People don't become farmers if they have to pay too much.

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.

And yet the industrial revolution has allowed children of farmers to take other professions.

Re: Georgism

#93

Post by pydry »

alexmingoia wrote: post #25
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.

>In my opinion property taxes are terrible because they aren’t in the owners control at all. There’s no way to know what your tax bill will be next year and no way to control for it.

So it's no different to rent in this respect. It IS effectively rent, it just spreads the unpredictability of renting across the whole society instead of concentrating the negative downside among one portion of society.

Unimproved land is pretty fungible. If you have two empty lots across the road or even in the same area they will usually end up costing about the same.

Re: Georgism

#94

Post by oDot »

geofft wrote: post #31
oDot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: Georgism

#95

Post by bluecalm »

CydeWeys wrote: post #72
MiroF wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> market cap Market cap doesn't measure economic activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r... Look at this. Among the tech companies that are high, most of those are consumer electronics or something else not purely related to tech.

Sort by profit, not be revenue, and you see the tech companies appearing again. Profit (or even just total corporate spending) is a better measure of economic activity than revenue.

Your focus on profit is misguided. It's neither measuring economic activity nor is a good base for taxation.

If someone makes a painting in 5 minutes and another guy pays 10M USD for it very little happened. 10M changed hands and the other guy has a painting on his wall. Yet somehow income tax proponents thinks it's fair to now take 50% from that transaction just because money changed hands. It's just not a good way to organize your tax system.

Re: Georgism

#96

Post by MiroF »

toohotatopic wrote: post #90
MiroF wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of substitutes doesn't make a monopoly no longer a monopoly. Bell was still a telephone monopoly even if I could have used carrier pigeons instead.

It's not the same. You cannot transport voice over a pigeon, at least not instantly. If you don' allow substitutes then every brand has a monopoly on the products of their brand. Technically that's a monopoly. But nobody complains about McDonalds having a monopoly on McDonalds burgers.

And you can't farm without farmland. Selling other goods and services is a very imperfect substitute for farming. Other burgers are a pretty good substitute for McDonald's burgers.

Re: Georgism

#97

Post by tsimionescu »

thechao wrote: post #52
nabla9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

This is exactly how non-private copyright & patents should work. That is copyright/patent "for hire" would be COST, with the rate of taxation increasing by a small amount each year until tax rate was 100%. This would given Disney the ability to keep the mouse for 120 years, but also free up less lucrative works for public enjoyment.

Why is it a goal to allow the Disney corporation to keep the mouse to itself for 120 years?

This notion of copyright has basically destroyed the idea of folklore in the last few hundred years, relegating it from one of the main areas of human expression to a corner of the internet.

I think even 20 + 20 copyright is problematic. People should be free to use characters and stories while they are still relevant, and create their own variations that may even become more popular than the 'original creation' (in quotes because so much of creativity rests on the shoulder of others).

Re: Georgism

#98

Post by somewhereoutth »

rikroots wrote: 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…

I'm from the UK - Council Tax was always a real pain, its based on property price but paid by the occupiers (i.e. renters) NOT the owners. When you are house-sharing this becomes very problematic as its the largest and not insignificant shared bill - especially when housemates are moving in/out frequently. Collection is also a nightmare for the councils - sure they know the address and the amount owed - but who was living there in the period in question?

Its a shame the inquiry didn't recommend formula funding from central government receipts (couple of pennies on income tax?) - so much grief could have been saved.

Re: Georgism

#99

Post by EGreg »

tlholaday wrote: post #45
aww_dang wrote: post #13

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.

In fact it is similar to the error of those who equate slavery and wage slavery. With the latter, you have a choice of employer, even without safety nets.

Re: Georgism

#100

Post by tlholaday »

neilwilson wrote: post #88
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.

The primary purpose of taxation in a sovereign economy is to free goods and services up for deployment by the public sphere. What does the government want with all that land? Are you sure you have enough fungibility in your economy so that it will free up doctors, judges, refuse collectors or whatever and all the real goods that their salaries actually represent so that you can achieve the public purpose that is the…

> What does the government want with all that land?

You are correct that the government does not want land. What the government wants is a share of the economic value that control of the land makes possible.

Consider "vacant storefronts." The government does not want to operate stores. The government wants those storefronts put to good economic use, where what is good use is determined by bona fide auctions.

Post reply on HN