Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LandCafe] Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Kj, You said: You can have both full collection of economic rent, and an exemption, or a CD, it doesn t matter what you call it, it s using a portion of the
    Message 1 of 229 , Feb 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Kj,

       

      You said:

       

      You can have both full collection of economic rent, and an exemption, or a CD, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's using a portion of the total LVT revenue, allocate a dollar value to each person, and letting them apply it to their LVT bill. What exactly is the problem? Personally, I'd like to give out a CD, but that's a different story.”

       

      You can have anything you like. The question is what is the point?

       

      The CD was originally suggested as a way to share out the rent. However, in an urban setting where rents are high, I suspect the total rent collection will be enough to pay for infrastructure maintenance, but not much more.

       

      Enormous rent returns have been calculated – enough to pay the federal government’s expenses – but I strongly doubt those calculations are valid.

       

      So, I doubt there will be a CD to distribute. Jeff Smith does a good job of using the CD to sell the idea of rent collection up in the Pacific North-West, but I think there won’t be any CD except perhaps eventually when the change has cleaned up the present urban messes.

       

      Using rent revenue to give out exemptions has no purpose. It just adds complexity and costs while contributing nothing of value. (It also fills this list with purposeless discussion of its problems.)

       

      Rent collection is not a tax. It is a charge. When you pay (say) $100 a week in rent for your location, you are buying an advantage to that location of $100 a week. You are not out of pocket $100 a week. Very high rent locations will be owned by the most able. Are they depriving the barely able of the right to use those locations? Of course. The less able shouldn’t be entrusted with valuable sites. They would go broke quickly and get in the way of those who can use them properly.

       

      It is in the best interest of all of us for the best sites to belong to the best producers.

       

      So, what is the point of an exemption? There isn’t any. T=Roy appears to think it will make rent collection more attractive. Can’t see that at all.

       

      “Hey! We are going to levy a tax on you but we are relieving you of half of it!”

       

      “I’d rather you wouldn’t tax us in the first place so we get 100% relief.”

       

      Forget the exemption. It’s a useless endeavor.

       

      Harry

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k_r_johansen
      Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:05 AM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT critisism

       

       



      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:
      >
      > However, unlike full economic rent collection which is an economic policy,
      > the exemption is a purely political policy. This means you can play around
      > with it anyway you wish.
      >

      I think this opposition to the UIE is starting to get beyond strange. You can have both full collection of economic rent, and an exemption, or a CD, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's using a portion of the total LVT revenue, allocate a dollar value to each person, and letting them apply it to their LVT bill. What exactly is the problem? Personally, I'd like to give out a CD, but that's a different story.

      I see in some of the posts (there's been a lot of them flying around the last 24h), that you acknowledge a need for welfare for those who cannot work. That's an impulse that lead to a systems experiment that has laster for some 100 years, and that in some countries consume between 10-20% of GDP (if you include in- and out of work benefits and social security). If you believe figuring out where people live is too much bureacracy, try to enact a system that can properly assertain who is needy and who is not. It seems that both you and David Spain is living in some sort of upper-middle-class Victorian dinner-party, when you describe the issue as it is simple enough to separate between beach-combers/voluntary hoboes, and severly handicapped individuals. Reality is ofcourse not so. Experience with needs/event-based welfare/social security is that it creates poverty traps, expansion of political interference in private lives, work disincentives, and it doesn't adress equality of opportunity and unequal bargaining power enough. All we are asking, is to change this system to a system of universal benefits, either through a land tax "exemption", or cash, that won't go away when you earn money. If you do that, the really needy 1-3 % of people that can never partake in productive activity on their own, will be much easier to identify.

      If you seriously believe that living on free land in the rocky mountains, growing vegetables and hunting rabbits, is a perfectly viable alternative for those who are not productive enough, either temporarily (which applies for most individuals some portion of their lives) or for the rest of their life, to compete and achieve a minimum standard of life as measured by society in general; you seriously have to get out more often.

      Kj

    • roy_langston
      ... 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
      Message 229 of 229 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.