Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 12/15/04
- Next message: Les Cargill: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Previous message: John Gilmer: "Re: Longevity, oil, climate"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:38:23 GMT
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:51:59 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
>lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
>> But that's why we have a market. It is an intersubjective determination
>> of productive value. Now sure, people will choose other criteria (e.g.,
>> aesthetic values) on why one block of land is better than another, but
>> economist must assume the rational econonmic actor in making their
>> decisions.
>
>That isn't the problem with calculating rent. The problem is exactly
>that rational actors are play. There will things like infrastructure,
>distance from shipping networks, distances from where a lot people live,
>etc that are have nothing to do with economic rent that will effect
>market rent.
?? It is flat false to claim they "have nothing to do with economic
rent." They have everything to do with economic rent.
>In some ways all of these are IMPROVEMENTS that make the
>land more valuable.
Right. And that added value appears on land _other_ than the land on
which those improvements are located. That is very much the point.
>This is not what we want to tax.
Right. And a land value tax _doesn't_tax_it_. It taxes the value
that _other_ land gains by virtue of the _untaxed_ improvements made
on each parcel. We _do_ want to tax the benefit that _A_ gets by
virtue of what _B_ does (especially when B's salary is being paid by
taxes), and that is exactly what a land value tax does.
>I do not think we can get it exactly right and get the textbook Georgian
>scenario.
You seem not to have any very clear understanding of what "the
textbook Georgian scenario" might be.
>Applications of theory such as this are rarely possible to get
>exactly right when implemented.
Zero tolerance is unscientific nonsense. Why is it only necessary to
get things "exactly right" when discussing land taxation, while it is
apparently quite acceptable to get them massively wrong with any other
kind of tax?
-- Roy L
- Next message: Les Cargill: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Previous message: John Gilmer: "Re: Longevity, oil, climate"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
