Walter, It is more efficient to do one thing - collect rent, - than to do two things collect rent and then produce a system to hand some back You say the UIEMessage 1 of 229 , Mar 6View Source
It is more efficient to do one thing – collect rent, - than to do two things collect rent and then produce a system to hand some back
You say the UIE is more just and more politically saleable than plain rent collection.
First, how is it more just?
Then tell me how you would approach the electorate with the more “politically salable” argument of a UIE? What would you tell them to get them enthusiastic about it?
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:
> "No, that isn't all I am saying. I'm saying rent recovery is more efficient,
> more just, and more politically salable with a UIE than without."
> None of this is true. That's three strikes.
I understand that, to you, that is an argument, but....
I personally don't have an opinion about "more efficient," but rent collection is definitely more just and more politically salable with a UIE than without.
In fact, if you really cared about the former (anywhere near as much as you do about not being wrong about anything), you'd stop fussing with the latter. LVT has gotten basically nowhere since the early 20th Century and will continue to get nowhere if the few Georgists in the world are as religiously resistant to improvements as you are.
A UIE (or CD) is almost certainly necessary to any broad-based acceptance of LVT. I'm not sure what could be more obvious than that simple political point. So, which is more important to you? Do you want to see rent recovery enacted anywhere or do you want to see your hero Henry George canonized? Which would be more important to George (who, again, was himself in favor of gradual implementation--a form of RPE)?
... Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as directMessage 229 of 229 , Apr 1View Source--- 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.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.
> 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?
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 seeOTC, because it so resembles leasehold tenure, I don't see how one can honestly call secure, exclusive land tenure in a geoist economy "ownership."
> no practical difference between security of tenure and ownership.
> Neither the "fruits" nor land should be taxed. However, in a GeorgistIt'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.
> 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.
-- Roy Langston