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

Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... LOL! So Harry claims it is more efficient to: Chew food than to chew it and then swallow it... Plow a field than to plow it and then seed it... Put the
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 7 12:44 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

      > It is more efficient to do one thing - collect rent, - than to do two things collect rent and then produce a system to hand some back

      LOL! So Harry claims it is more efficient to:

      Chew food than to chew it and then swallow it...

      Plow a field than to plow it and then seed it...

      Put the car in gear than to put it in gear and then depress the accelerator...

      Etc.

      I think we get the picture: Harry is at the point where he will just say anything.

      > You say the UIE is more just and more politically saleable than plain rent collection.
      >
      > First, how is it more just?

      It restores the liberty to use land that exclusive tenure with plain rent collection forcibly removes without just compensation (the UIE does replace the natural liberty right to non-exclusive use with a more limited but more valuable legal liberty right to exclusive use).

      > Then tell me how you would approach the electorate with the more
      > "politically salable" argument of a UIE? What would you tell them to get them enthusiastic about it?

      "With the UIE, everyone gets free, secure access to economic opportunity, so we can virtually eliminate the taxes that fund poverty relief programs, and/or use the money to provide desired services and infrastructure instead."

      "Because the UIE restores your right to liberty, you'll have good alternatives to working for someone else, and be in a better position to bargain with employers for better wages, working conditions, etc. Your basic rent for a place to live in will be taken care of, so you won't be so desperate that you have to take the first job offer you get. You'll be able to hold out for a more suitable job, higher wages, a more convenient location, etc. So we will soon find we won't need minimum wages, welfare, and all the other government rules and programs we now have to make up for taking away people's rights to liberty."

      "With the UIE, you'll only have to pay for the amount of good land you use over and above the amount people need to live on, and people who only use that much won't have to pay any land tax at all. "

      "If you're a tenant, you'll be far better off with the UIE because you'll get a couple hundred dollars off your rent each month for each person [or "adult," to keep Walter happy] in your household. Plus you won't have to pay any taxes on your income or the things you buy. You'll be able to afford a better place in a better location, and have more money left over for other things at the end of the month."

      "Even if you own land you will almost certainly be better off, because you won't have to pay any taxes on your income or on what you buy, and the UIE ensures you won't have to pay anything for the basic amount of good land you're using for a place to live. Remember, unless you are rich and own a lot of valuable land, the value of the land you own under your house is really just an illusion, because you can't really cash it in: you'd just have to pay the same amount out again to live in an equivalently good location somewhere else. But with the UIE, you don't have to pay for a decent location to live in, only for the amount of good land you want to use over and above the basic amount everyone gets to use for free. The UIE makes sure that land rent recovery is even more progressive, ensuring that everyone but the top few percent of the richest landowners will be better off."

      "The UIE significantly reduces the basic cost of living, making wages and the economy much more competitive, so there will be lots of good jobs available. Though actual wages might not rise much, most working people's real disposable incomes -- which are the real measure of material well-being -- will double or triple."

      Etc.

      -- 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.