Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 01/28/05
- Next message: Lantern: "Re: America Online Drops Newsgroups"
- Previous message: Kent Paul Dolan: "[Libertarians say "no" to Humanity's Shelter] (segue from): Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- In reply to: quirk_at_syntac.net: "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: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:13:51 GMT
On 27 Jan 2005 09:45:38 -0800, quirk@syntac.net wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>Thank you Roy, your comments are educational as always.
>
>> On 17 Jan 2005 12:04:02 -0800, quirk@syntac.net wrote:
>
>> >Perhaps, but if people chose //not// to use //all// the land they
>are
>> >entitled to, shouldn't the remaining rent collected from their fair
>> >share of land, after government expenditure, return as dividend?
>
>> IMO it's the "after government expenditure" part that is problematic.
>
>To me it's an advantage, since the prospect of a dividend would tend to
>put pressure on the Government to not fund project that didn't have
>diffuse support, such as Corporate Welfare.
I _very_much_agree_ that if government got its revenue from land rent
and people were generally aware of the connection between government
spending and land rent, a _huge_ amount of current wasteful government
spending would be eliminated.
>However, if
>Total Rents are higher than Expenditures would it not be best to
>distribute the surplus by way of equal dividend than by elective
>government spending or simply not spending it and contributing to
>deflation?
If all efficient government spending is covered off, IMO it would make
sense to distribute any surplus revenue from land rent equally among
the people in some form of targeted purchasing power: first a modest
flat per capita land rent abatement, then maybe something like food
stamps. But that is something for the community to decide,
democratically.
>> But the purchasing power thus
>> distributed should only apply to the necessities of life, just as the
>> land rent abatement applies to a necessity of life.
>
>Since the rent is publicly owned, each should have the right to chose
>what they spend their share of it on, no?
Right. But by voting on how it will be spent, not by just spending
their own share as they please. Remember, public recovery of land
rent is to secure an equal, impartial opportunity to use land for all.
It is not to secure an equal share of land rent to all, in part
because people vary in the amount of land they would choose to use,
and thus in the amount of land rent they could claim as compensation
for relinquishing the right to use it.
>> >Otherwise people would always seek to extend their use of land to
>the
>> >allowable exemption, instead of their actual needs, this
>inefficiency
>> >would mean less products for everyone, no?
>>
>> As very, very few people would choose not to use the full exemption
>> anyway (what fraction of the population currently chooses to use less
>> than half the median per capita residential land value, maybe 1%?),
>
>This seems counterintertuitive to me, since the largescale commercial
>usage of land reduces the potential residential usage, it means that
>commercial users are employing the unused portion of the residential
>users fair share.
?? Without the commercial users, how much interest would there be in
residential use? And what "residential users' fair share"? People
have equal rights to use land, not a right to equal shares of the land
rent. If an individual chooses not to exercise his right to use land
for commercial purposes, no one owes him anything as a result.
>Half the median per capital residential land value is not the measure
>of personal exemption I would use, rather Total Rent divided by Total
>Population minus budgeted community expenditure.
But that just _assumes_ that equal rights to use land necessarily
implies a right to equal shares of the land rent. IMO that
implication has not been established and is not defensible. Only
government can recover the land rent on behalf of the people, and its
responsibility for administering that revenue matches its authority to
recover it. So if the people vote to instruct their government to
distribute any surplus, that is their right. But until they do so, it
is _not_ a right of any individual to claim his "share" of any such
surplus.
>> it's not clear to me that that result would be less socially
>desirable
>> than the result of just giving those who chose to use less land value
>> money to spend as they please -- i.e., all too often, to spend on
>> alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, lottery tickets, junk food,
>> pornography, etc.
>
>Isn't that a little moralistic?
Maybe. For some people, money is like a drug: they use it
irresponsibly, harming themselves. Government should not be in the
business of enabling such behavior.
>All the things you mention are legitimate consumer goods as far as I'm
>concerned. (except maybe lottery tickets)
And I have seen the results of just giving people cash to spend as
they please: addiction, poverty, crime, disease and degradation.
>Besides are the vices of people really so much worse that the vices of
>Governments; war, patronage, corruption, waste, etc.
At least with democratic governments there is nominally a public
process of accountability for such spending.
>> >I see no problem if people chose to buy products //instead of//
>> >monopolizing land.
>>
>> I see a problem: they have a right to use land, not to "monopolize"
>> it; and they do not have a right to the products of others' labor.
>
>No, but they can trade their share of the collect Rent for whatever
>they want, be it residential land for their own dwelling //or// the
>products of others' people labour.
But that assumes they actually have a right to an equal "share" of the
rent rather than just an equal right to use the land and participate
in the public decision making process associated with the collective
implementation of that right.
>> >In fact, in compensation for //not// monopolizing
>> >it, though they are entitled to.
>
>> Why should they be compensated for giving up something they don't
>want
>> anyway?
>
>It is not that they don't want it, it is that they would rather spend
>the Rent on other things.
The rent is not theirs to spend. They have a right to use land, not
to pocket its rent. Pocketing land rent for doing nothing wouldn't
somehow become virtuous just because everybody did it to the same
degree, rather than the current situation of a small minority doing
more of it than everyone else put together.
>Why force them to use land or lose out?
They can _choose_ (not be "forced") to use land because that is what
they have a right to do. They do not have a right to a per capita
distribution of rent, and are thus not "losing out" on anything if
they choose to use little land.
>Just like money savings, you are compensated in interest for //not//
>consuming.
No. Your money savings nominally result from your own private
productive efforts, and are thus yours to do with as you please. Land
rent does not and thus is not.
>> >Why should those who more modestly use
>> >land subsidize those who max-out their exemption.
>
>> It's not clear to me how they would "subsidize" those who used the
>> full exemption. How is any of the product of their labor being
>> transferred to those who use the full exemption?
>
>Because the undistributed surplus rent of the modest users contributes
>to community expenditures,
That "undistributed surplus rent" is not the _property_ of the modest
users. It doesn't come from them, and they have no right to it.
Valid property rights are founded on an act of production, not on just
being a member of a community.
>thus benefiting the max users, though they
>are not contributing to the surplus.
?? Who are not? The max users? They are contributing the _most_ to
the surplus!
>Thus it is not the "product of their labour," but rather a portion of
>their return on their rightful share of providence,
Land rent does not come from Providence (or Nantucket ;). It comes
from the community. There is no individual right to pocket publicly
created and recovered land rent any more than there is an individual
right to pocket publicly created but privately appropriated land rent.
>that is transfered
>to those who use the full exemption.
>Again, why force them to use land or lose out?
The right to use land is like the right to vote: if you choose not to
exercise it, you are not rightfully owed one dime of "compensation."
-- Roy L
- Next message: Lantern: "Re: America Online Drops Newsgroups"
- Previous message: Kent Paul Dolan: "[Libertarians say "no" to Humanity's Shelter] (segue from): Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- In reply to: quirk_at_syntac.net: "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
|
