RE: [LandCafe] Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism
“No, that isn't all I am saying. I'm saying rent recovery is more efficient, more just, and more politically salable with a UIE than without.”
None of this is true. That’s three strikes.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:
> "HP> Now, if you want idiosyncratic, we have this ridiculous exemption.No, you can't.
> 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 taxSo somehow, the mess of political pressures and influence has resulted in the same sort of exemption arising everywhere?
> is a mess of exemptions and additions as political pressures exert their influence.
Don't _think_ so...
> All you are saying is that you can proceed with the exemption.No, that isn't all I am saying. I'm saying rent recovery is more efficient, more just, and more politically salable with a UIE than without.
> I see no need for it and in fact it just complicates something that isIt's actually not that easy to understand, sorry; and most of the people who do understand it, and might support it if they perceived it as being more advantageous to them personally, do not support it. _That_ makes things more difficult.
> fairly easy to understand and makes things more difficult rather than the reverse.
-- Roy Langston
- --- 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