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

Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... As I see it, Harry is blowing up a tempest in a teapot to make a mountain out of a molehill because he wants to sell people the sizzle not the steak hoping
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 24 11:19 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

      > FWIW, this particular disagreement between you two seems to me at best tempest in a teapot.

      As I see it, Harry is blowing up a tempest in a teapot to make a mountain out of a molehill because he wants to sell people the sizzle not the steak hoping they'll buy his pig in a poke.

      > Roy

      Harry.

      > wants every monopolizer to have the impression that he/she absolutely owns the space he/she is occupying--so long as the full rent is paid. Sounds nice and comforting, but the payment (as there is no exemption) is higher than that which Roy requires for giving precisely the same rights but calling it something less comforting to the monopolizer, but more comforting to him.
      >
      > I mean, really.

      Precisely.

      -- 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.