RE: [LandCafe] Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:
>I suspect not that many. You have to invent children to do it. While this is possible, it is not a scam that is easy or usually worth the return, and the perpetrators are from a known group of the population that specialize in this.
> As you mentioned, 66 instances of fraud were reported. How many weren't
I don't know if you have any idea about insurance/benefit fraud/, but 66 out of 1.1 million would be considered quite a raging success... Once again, you have to look at things in proportion. IMO this is a non-issue. You should stick to your rack-rent argument! ;)
>Having the "intrusiveness" of having a department that wants confirmation that you are born, is not dead, and live somewhere, I can live with that, considering I give this information out to private entities all the time.
> I recall that over here one Chicago family had received more than a million
> dollars in welfare - a news item. Perhaps your cradle to the grave welfare
> state is so intrusive that such things can't happen. (We used to call it -
> somewhat irreverently the "womb to the tomb" welfare state.)
There are other parts of the welfare system that is actually intrusive, but that's when you start doling out according to events or life-situations, which is exactly what I don't want. You see the difference between being for a universal dividend and the welfare state don't you?
> I do note that the Guardian recently printed that 49% of the BritishI'm not in/from the UK, but I've noticed everything is not peachy, yes.
> population are leaving, or would like to leave. While one takes all these
> statistics with a grain, or two, of salt, there does seem considerable
> dissatisfaction in the old country.
- --- 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