Re: Income from a tax on land.

• Previous message: David James Polewka: "Re: The USA must destroy the damned Euro ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"
• In reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
• Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
• Reply: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: 19 Dec 2004 23:30:45 -0500

royls@telus.net writes:

> On 19 Dec 2004 11:41:58 -0500, jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
>
> >royls@telus.net writes:
> >
> >> On 18 Dec 2004 09:19:21 -0500, jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >"lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au" <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On a philosophical principled level all have equal right to natural
> >> >> resources, as Locke pointed out.
> >> >
> >> >Yes and it was premised on some inference that
> >> >we don't have the right to ourselves as we are
> >> >the property of God and so have a duty to preserve
> >> >our life--therefore we are granted the equal right
> >> >(as inference Locke makes) to nature by God.
> >>
> >> The argument gets to the same conclusion without God. Equal rights
> >> are meaningless without an equal right to use what nature provides.
> >
> >Gets to the same conclusion but loses it's moral
> >force.
>
> Only if you consider God the only source of morality.
>
> >Now we have to agree on a morality that
> >clearly not everyone is agreeing with.
>
> ?? And you think everyone agrees with Locke's idea of God?
>
> Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with any given moral
> argument. The religious don't accept arguments that are not
> consistent with their idiosyncratic assumptions of supernatural
> revelation, and sociopaths don't give a fig for any moral arguments.

Of course they're not going to. The point was that
the moral basis of Locke is his appeal to an ultimate
moral authority (which even today is still considered
by a majority of people apparently a given fact).

If one then jetison's that authority either some other
basis for the moral claims and the moral conclusions
is required or the moral claims go as well.

You and Lev can take you pick.

> >> >The equal right to may or may not be a guarantee
> >> >of such possession. It's also not what the LVT
> >> >proponents are actally arguing.
> >>
> >> But it is the natural response to those who claim that land rent must
> >> not be recovered for public purposes because certain people have a
> >> special right to pocket it for their own purposes.
> >
> >Land rents--assuming we can actually trace them fairly
> >to everyone and not some subset--are different, as you've
> >said countless times yourself, from the land and ownership.
> >Locke's, and any other agument that leads to similar conclusions,
> >argument about our individual rights to individually appropriate
> >from nature had nothing to do with land rent.
>
> Land rent was not understood at that time, but Locke's argument is
> clearly relevant to current discussions of land rent. It is central
> to solving the problem of reconciling the individual right to access
> natural resources with the fact that such access must frequently be
> exclusive to be useful.

I find that a proplematic claim. It clearly existed and I
find it hard to believe that people in general were not
aware of rental rates for similar land, or prices for that
matter, being driven by proximity to markets and town centers.
Petty seems to have had some notion of the idea tha land value
and prices were not only derived from land's productivity or
the labor working it.

Prehaps rather than being unaware of land rents they were
merely taken for granted.

Sure but then don't ignore the whole of Locke's argument.One of
his responses to the question of question of "as much as and
as good" for others was that nature is rather stingy with her
fruit but a man's labor produces abuncance.By taking a small
bit from nature that man is not only able to produce for
himself but produces a surplus that is now available for
others--not for free as is is the case of nature but still
available.
 
> >> >> However, for pragmatic reasons, individuals or organisations possess
> >> >> and are responsible for land (I have a great deal of sympathy for
> >> >> "public ownership", but the "tragedy of the commons does apply).
> >> >>
> >> >> Therefore, the _proceeds_ of land need to be shared equally.
> >> >
> >> >The claim is that "the community" creates the rents earned
> >> >by land. That at least has some merit in the claim.
> >>
> >> Indeed, it is a fact beyond serious dispute.
> >
> >But it's an imprecise propostion.
>
> Zero tolerance is unscientific nonsense.

I didn't call for zero tolerance but until your response
to me in another post I'd not seen you even consider
the question. Even there I don't think you actaully
made a huge effort to address the issue.

> >You need to also
> >show that all the claim on those rents is uniform
> >thoguhout the community.
>
> How else can the equal rights of all be secured?

Equal rights doesn't mean mean if you have it I can
now take it. Nor does equal rights to nature mean
that society can now charge you for what you're using.

If you want to claim that my use of land is generating
$X in rents that I cam collecting for using that land
and that $X exists merely because the actions of some
others are producing this external value I'm now collecting
as a land rent, that's a bit different. It's not the
case that everyone in society has produced that external
effect so how is giving them a share of it or kicking
me off so someone else can pay and everyone then
gets a share securing this equal right?
 
> >Only at that point can you
> >claim to have solved the problem of rents being extracted.
>
> More zero tolerance...?

No, just good analysis. If you don't want to disaggregate
the problem at least do some preliminary work to establish
a reasonable probablility that it's a second order type
issue or that it all nets out. Don't just assume it.
 
> >The other aspect is what about people who are using the
> >land for non-productive uses and so not collecting any rent?
>
> What gives them the right to prevent others from using it?

The fact they have just as good a right and currently
ARE using it. That appears to be a fairly well established
social convention even in cultures that don't have any
extensive private property rights.
 
> >Where does the community gain the right to expell this
> >person from the land they've approrpriated, directly
> >or indirerectly (un which case they may have had to pay
> >a rent already) just beacuse they refuse to pay the
> >rent to the taxing authority.
>
> Possession founded on nothing but appropriation is just as
> legitimately overturned by appropriation. Where does the land's user
> get the right to prevent others from using it?

The social conventions for minimizing conflict that
recognise the current users has a superior claim to
use. If they stop using it but still want to prevent
others then, depending on one's assumptions about
property rights, others' right to access become into
force. If two or more are competing for the unused
resource then some, preferably non-violent, rationing
approach seems desirable.

Perhaps the difference here is one of a transition
between regemes and transactions under a regeme.

> >It they are not collecting
> >any rent they should not be required to pay any rents
> >even if the land is fully capible of generating those
> >rents.
>
> ?? Of course they should. Not charging them rent would grant them a
> dog-in-the-manger privilege. Private landlords don't forego the rent
> for unproductive users, so why would the community, which has a much
> more valid claim to the rent? You also seem to be getting confused
> between economic rent and vernacular rent.

Because the community doesn't own the land either.
If a person is not using land to extract a rent
from others then the community has no right to
demand any payment.

Is this the new theme now, social ownership and social
rights--all justified by Locke's theory of property
that was a individual right?

> >> >That
> >> >the rents are created equally by all members of the community
> >> >is a much more difficult claim to establish so the claim of
> >> >some equal share by all is debatable.
> >>
> >> IMO it is clear that rent is not created equally by all, but that
> >> rather, the equal right of all to use the land can only be secured
> >> through payment of the rent to the community, which then, as a result
> >> of a democratic process, uses it in ways considered impartially
> >> (though perhaps not equally) beneficial to all. The equal right of
> >> all to use natural resources does not, IMO, necessarily imply a right
> >> of all individuals to equal personal shares of the rent -- unless,
> >> perhaps, it is acknowledged that all owe equal payments to support the
> >> societal mechanisms that administer the rent recovery system, secure
> >> the users' tenure, etc. IOW, that government must be paid for before
> >> any rent is distributed equally among the people.
> >
> >While that's certainly one of the admirnable goals of the
> >approach I don't see how the goal is really accomplished
> >when those with more financial resources are allowed to
> >force another off their land merely beacause a rent
> >can be generated.
>
> It's not "their" land. And how often do you see those with more
> financial resources forcing people off rented land or out of rented
> premises now? How would this somehow become more prevalent if the
> rent was being recovered by the community?
>
> >This becomes more complecated when
> >we accept the imperfection of a democratic society and
> >the potential for agenda setting and rent-management.
>
> That is the same with any spending and revenue system, net of inherent
> characteristics of simplicity, transparency, equality, etc., which all
> favor land rent recovery over other alternatives.

Care to elaborate?
 
> >We curently see people using the government to create
> >rents for industry and special interests. Changing
> >to Georgist approach would simply shift the application
> >of political power from rent-creation to rent-contol and
> >management as beneficial to special interestes.
>
> Of course, any institutional arrangement can in theory be corrupted.
> But it's much harder with land, because everything is public.

It might be public but it's not always simple or transparent
or clear.
 
> >There's also the whole problem that public spending
> >generally fails to be "considered impartially...
> >beneficial to all." Spending appears almost as
> >driven by special interest lobbying as regulation
> >and taxation are.
>
> True, the notion of the general welfare has been expanded to
> near-meaninglessness; but the flaws in the design of current
> democratic institutions are a separate issue. At least even under
> current institutions, considerable effort is devoted to maintaining an
> appearance of even-handedness.
>
> >It might be that this works well, meaning improves over
> >the current situation. It might be that it works well in
> >some special settings, I think some have suggested a few
> >localities are currently using a LVT approach and the results
> >are good.
>
> As land can't move, LVT is a natural choice for local governments.

Sure but that, and the need for everyone and everything to actually
be somewhere, also supports the old public finance propsition of
taxing inelastic demand.

> >It might be that is only works a in a local setting
> >but very poorly in a national or international setting.
>
> I don't know how it might be made international, but it has certainly
> worked well in national settings.

Where?

jmh

• Previous message: David James Polewka: "Re: The USA must destroy the damned Euro ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"
• In reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
• Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
• Reply: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]