Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>It was a euphemism, and what I meant was that I didn't care about the debate, I am very much in favour of "handpouts" in the forms of tax credits/direct payments towards children, like we do now, although not as generous.
> I have n't switched on the baby property owners: that was krj who somehow calls himself and Roy "We" while caring not" a flying flag"( a Scandinavian idiom?) for tax discounts for babies .
I assume pensions funded by current workers are not regarded as handouts?
>He also believes in some kind of CD based on land values while knowing full well they can become worthless very quickly.(In fact the whole pre-Crunch banking bubble was formed from completely delusional collateralised debt obligations ,commercial paper based on property prices that went "phut" practically overnight.)<Ah yes, capital values do move about frequently, but rental values don't, which is what we want to tax. And when we do that, capital values also stabilise, in fact the whole economy stabilises. And when we remove other taxes, rental values -> LVT receipts increase. This is LVT theory, you should look into it sometime.
>So don't get what he wants at all.<For you to accept maths and logic.
>I remain staunchly opposed to exemptions for babies but am becoming more disturbed by the other thing that came late on in the evolution of Roy's alleged thought: the Recent Purchase Exemption which will cause neighbours to swap houses once the exemptions begin to taper off .No doubt he will be coming up with some new breakthrough soon .You don't think he's, by any chance, making it up a he goes along, do you?<As it is quite clear that you don't believe in land value tax, except as an ad-hoc measure in your arsenal quaint policies that presents opportunities for putting forward anecdotes - it is quite predictable that any attempts at adressing the issues that you yourself have put forward (capital markets and the conditions that individual landowners assumed when they bought property), will be unwelcome.
- --- 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