Re: Geoffrey Gardiner to Michael Hudson


"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:56q96qF29il22U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sinister wrote:

LOL!

Nonsense. One of the two main points about LVT (the other being
efficiency) is that it's distinctly fair, because rents are accrued in
exchange for no contribution to production.

That is fair? However the LVT has the virtue of simplicity. A government

Of course it's fair. Why should someone be given something for nothing?

which is funded by LVT is unlikely to become a redistributionist pot of
swill. The poor will go to bed hungry as is proper for the poor to do.

No. The urban working poor especially will thrive under LVT. Instead of
their land rent going to some slumlord, it will go to the government, which
will use it on their behalf, and cut harmful taxes like sales taxes that
they disproportionately bear.

Bob Kolker



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Land val tax ==> sprawl?
    ... >criticism of LVT. ... for any depletion of a depletable natural resource. ... >rents so as to be close to the movie theater and a job. ... LVT makes it cheaper for people to live there, because less land is ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Geoffrey Gardiner to Michael Hudson
    ... One of the two main points about LVT is that it's distinctly fair, because rents are accrued in exchange for no contribution to production. ... The poor will go to bed hungry as is proper for the poor to do. ...
    (sci.econ)