Spot the land taxer /find a rack renter
The analogy with Raise the Titanic (Lew Grade film) did n't work very well but there does appear to be a big difference between Georgists who want to raise Titanic amounts of land tax and spend it for the public benefit and those who want to lower the Atlantic :get land prices down so the public benefit from that .Harry is in the latter school and would impose a stonking great Land Tax for that purpose alone ,throwing away any revenue.This appears rather quixotic but he is well aware of that.
Following Mill (at quite a distance), I would only impose a land tax as a land price inflation control .The revenue money which so obsesses a lot of land taxers should come from its primary source: the credit creation process ,for instance using State generated Quantitative Easing money to pay for the public services (instead of giving it to the banks who fritter it away) .It was Ezra Pound (ouch! a poet and inmate of Pisa Military detention center and St Elizabeth's Mental Hospital!) who said there was no point in the State re-cycling money through the taxation system when it could create new money itself.
Although the Tsingtao system operated successfully on a taxing 50% of land value basis (apparently),most Georgists including Harry insist on taxing land top dollar@ 100%.Then they get into arguments because this corresponds to the rack rate they deplore when private landowners extract it: rack rent (100% of location value) bad; full recovery of location benefit good.
The way out of this impasse is to impose land value tax only at whatever rate necessary to keep land price inflation in check or ,at least, below the rate of wage inflation.This could be done very locally.
BTW I cannot see the difference in essence between the Tsingtao 50% LVT and your pet scheme for massive individual exemptions.
Once you abandon the shibboleth of a 100% land tax rate things get a lot easier.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
> > If prices drop, so does rack-rent increase,I take it that Harry is considering a place with a limited number of parcels where landowners can basically take all that isn't needed to keep their tenants alive. Imagine, e.g., an island with one landlord. The residents need to live someplace, so they'd be at this owner's mercy. In such a place, if the prices of tenant-consumed goods dropped, nothing would prevent the owner from raising rents to take the difference, would it?
> > maintaining wages at subsistence.
> There is no rack-rent involved, as land users
> are perfectly at liberty to just deal with less
> greedy landowners. What would stop them? The
> position of the margin is unaffected, so Harry
> has to invoke some sort of mystical landowner
> rack-renting power to keep wages at subsistence.
> -- Roy Langston