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

Here's a question LVT Cafe-ers... We often argue,...

Expand Messages
  • eric britton
    From http://www.facebook.com/groups/landcafe/ From: Lev Lafayette [mailto:notification+mbxqmrer@facebookmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 30 April, 2013 12:33 To: Land
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Facebook

      From http://www.facebook.com/groups/landcafe/

       

      From: Lev Lafayette [mailto:notification+mbxqmrer@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, 30 April, 2013 12:33
      To: Land Cafe: LVT & Value Capture
      Subject: [Land Cafe: LVT & Value Capture] Here's a question LVT Cafe-ers... We often argue,...

       

      Here's a question LVT Cafe-ers... We often...

      Lev Lafayette

      12:32pm Apr 30

      Here's a question LVT Cafe-ers... We often argue, quite correctly, that every dollar raised by LVT is better than a dollar raised on capital and especially labour.

      But my question is *how* much better?

      It is typically assumed that $1 raised by LVT whilst reducing capital/labour taxes by the same amount is the equivalent of putting $2 back in the economy.

      But we have to account for strategic public investments, the fact that capital/labour taxes are often based on high incomes which are spent poorly (remember Adam Smith's comments about taxing luxuries).

      Are there any empirical studies on this which indicate a ratio? For example every dollar raised from LVT equals two fifty raised by payroll tax?

      I know of the Henry Report in Australia which spoke of 'welfare loss' due to different tax systems (the Petroleum Resource Tax - a type of LVT - came out the best), but are there any others?

      View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.