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

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

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Matt, The income tax code is a mess of exemptions, subsidies, and peculiarities. They get tacked on seemingly indiscriminately. Of course, any political
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Matt,

       

      The income tax code is a mess of exemptions, subsidies, and peculiarities. They get tacked on seemingly indiscriminately. Of course, any political interference is possible including the UIE.

       

      However, is Roy’s exemption really necessary. I would say no.

       

      Harry

       

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mattbieker
      Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:38 AM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism

       

       

      I think you're avoiding the point, Harry. Far from being idiosyncratic, exemptions are part and parcel to broad tax bases. And, if we're being honest, I very much doubt you yourself would argue against a income tax exemption, if we're to have an income tax.

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:
      >
      > Roy,
      >
      >
      >
      > You use this again and again.
      >
      >
      >
      > "HP> Now, if you want idiosyncratic, we have this ridiculous exemption.
      >
      > RL So idiosyncratic that every country that has a broad based income tax has
      > a UIE...."
      >
      >
      >
      > Politically, you can do anything you like with legislation. The income tax
      > is a mess of exemptions and additions as political pressures exert their
      > influence. All you are saying is that you can proceed with the exemption.
      >
      >
      >
      > Whether it should happen is another matter.
      >
      >
      >
      > I see no need for it and in fact it just complicates something that is
      > fairly easy to understand and makes things more difficult rather than the
      > reverse.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of roy_langston
      > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:24 AM
      > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT
      > criticism
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com , "Harry
      > Pollard" wrote:
      >
      > > "In Harry's unsupported and idiosyncratic opinion."
      > >
      > > Yet, this has been taught in Henry George Schools for 80 years - hardly
      > idiosyncratic.
      >
      > Can you provide a specific reference...?
      >
      > Not for what Henry George claimed. For what YOU claimed.
      >
      > > Now, if you want idiosyncratic, we have this ridiculous exemption.
      >
      > So idiosyncratic that every country that has a broad based income tax has a
      > UIE....
      >
      > > Also Roy said:
      > >
      > > "Yes, Henry George did occasionally make such grandiose claims."
      > >
      > > This from the person who makes grandiose claims for an exemption.
      >
      > Like...?
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >

    • 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.