Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> There's something in what you say: indeed this Millite "exemption" is a selling- point in the totally boxed-in political position we now have to deal with.I see: it's a "selling point" that makes the whole concept totally and permanently unsalable, as its benefits are rendered too small, remote, and implausible to be worth pursuing in any conceivable political position.
> People get to keep their present land valueBy "people," I take it you mean that corporations and the rich, greedy takers who own them get to keep the publicly created land value they are accustomed to stealing, while the landless get to keep their serfdom.
> but must forgo any increase and in return benefit from the good jobs and increased money supply of Keynesian demand stimulus.I.e., the rich, greedy takers who own most of the land will benefit from the good jobs they have neither any need for nor any interest in taking, while they remain shielded from the inflation that will ravage seniors and others on fixed incomes, awaiting the inevitable electoral success that will reset land values at a higher level as part of a perpetual ratcheting-up process.
It must be wonderful to be able to think things through like that...
> A quid pro quo. Absent speculative capital gains in land value, the hot money will skedaddle and we'll be left with lower real use property prices anyway .No, the Millite 100% Land Tax Exemption Scheme For The Benefit Of Rich, Greedy Takers guarantees that land prices will NEVER fall below their level at the time of implementation, nor their level at the time of any future implementation following electoral defeat and the subsequent inevitable ratcheting-up of prices.
> When it begins to dawn on speculators that land value is no great hedge against inflation any more, land and property prices could continue heading down.(This is a variant of Harry's scenario.)That is effectively impossible, as explained above: the currently expected future subsidy level is effectively locked in.
> (NP) As the Austrians say : it is a matter of time. Otherwise you could say:you can't abolish slavery at any one instant; what about all those who died in slavery in the past?Huh? Read Henry George, "The Great Grandson of Captain Kidd."
> From the point of emancipation from continuous land price slaveryWhich can't possibly be achieved under the Millite scheme, as explained above...
> ,there will be gradually increasing, not set percentage, freedom from here on as general inflation leaves land price inflation behind.So you are counting on inflation to make the Millite 100% Land Tax Exemption Scheme For The Benefit Of Rich, Greedy Takers work more like actual LVT. That should be popular...
> Other forms of LVT do have the retrospective justice element to them .No, retrospective justice would have to mean retroactive taxation of capital gains on land, which no one is proposing.
> People will say they would n't have got themselves in so much mortgage hock if they'd known Georgite LVT would turn up.Which is why the RPE is needed to rescue such unfortunates from the full logical consequences of their greed and carelessness.
> No such defence with Mill.Or LVT+RPE. The difference being that unlike the Mill version, LVT+RPE would actually enable increasingly full recovery of publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit.
-- 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