--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:
> HP > Let's not pursue this. Ownership in a full rent collection economy is fine and harms no-one.
> RL: Not so. Once it is conceded that land is owned as the fruits of one's
> labor are owned, how does one justify taxing one and not the other?
> In a Georgist economy, how on earth does ownership of land harm anyone, whereas "security of tenure", which you favor, doesn't?
Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as direct landholders). But if people OWN land in a Georgist economy, they have a very good reason to VOTE AGAINST that Georgist economy, thus voting themselves a privilege of pocketing "their" land's rent.
It is going to be monumentally difficult to implement a geoist economy. In fact, it may be the most difficult task that will ever be accomplished by human beings. It is therefore crucial that the implementation make it even more difficult to undo than it is to do.
> You apparently see
> no practical difference between security of tenure and ownership.
OTC, because it so resembles leasehold tenure, I don't see how one can honestly call secure, exclusive land tenure in a geoist economy "ownership."
> Neither the "fruits" nor land should be taxed. However, in a Georgist
> economy, if your location benefits from the surrounding community, you will
> pay that advantage back to them. This isn't a tax. It's a fee - you pay for what you get.
It's true that unlike income tax or other taxes, land rent recovery is a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction. It is the only possible way government can be made self-financing. But all that claiming "it's not a tax" will get is a popular perception of disingenuousness.
-- Roy Langston