Re: Relative poverty, a problem?

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:26:06 -0400, Nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

sinister wrote:

Much better solution than regulating economic power is to rid the system
of economic power which is both immoral _and_ inefficient: private
monopolies on land.

The tax land value is not a bad idea. What is bad is to believe that it can
solve all the problems. This is exactly the same type of fundamentalism
like any other fundamentalist ideology. This is why the Georgism is broken.
Not because the land tax is bad which is not, but because of the
fundamentalism of the Georgists supporters that regard this as a panacea.

IME such "fundamentalism" is quite rare among those who are commonly
termed Georgists, but far more frequently attributed to LVT advocates
by LVT opponents. Obviously the 19th C claims of the Single Tax
heralding the Kingdom of God on earth were overdone. Nobody today
seriously claims LVT will solve all problems, nor even all economic
problems.

But the fact is, some solutions are so powerful and so broadly
effective that the term "panacea" is not entirely misplaced. Consider
the effect on public health of simple sanitation measures and safe
water supplies, compared to all the money and effort formerly devoted
to far inferior solutions to health problems. That's the kind of
world-shifting result LVT will produce.

The fact that land tax value it is indeed a good idea does not
justify the fundamentalism Georgism that wants to repel anything else and
subordinate everything else to this "secret idea".

It's only a secret because it has been so ruthlessly suppressed.

So yes. Tax land can help and I actually support the idea, to be used
moderatelly along with other means of taxation. I say moderatelly, because
small lots for a family house must be available to anyone, and also farmers
must have serious discounts to be able to provide food at a price
affordable to anyone.

The provision of a modest, flat, uniform, per capita LVT exemption
would ensure everyone access to sufficient land for their basic living
and working needs. And we have already shown you that farming would
bear a SMALLER tax burden under LVT. You apparently can't get your
head around the fact that LVT taxes land by its VALUE, not its AREA.

Then, you can have the income tax or other
wealth/asset tax if you want to collect enough revenue to provide an
infrastructure of social services.

After natural resource rents, the next tax base is other rents such as
IP rents, utility monopolies, interest on privately created money,
etc.

In other words, I agree with a tax land but I strongly oppose Georgism as
much as I oppose any other fundamentalist ideology.

You oppose a strawman.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What the LVT is, and what its advantages are - must read
    ... tax systems being by far *the worst* at this, ... you are simply calling what is not LVT LVT. ... public land. ... LVT in Hong Kong is a constantly told huge Georgist success ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
    ... traders because it is a tax on income. ... LVT would reduce the tax burden on farming ... Use 100 acre of land in countryside. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Obvious Question From Peter & Dan Snows "Who Owns Britain?"
    ... the LVT Campaign is misguided. ... The land tax would need to apply universally, ... Why Land Value Tax Cannot be Passed On ... Suppose a producer on a high value site put up prices in an attempt to ...
    (uk.politics.economics)
  • Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
    ... The tax land value is not a bad idea. ... This is why the Georgism is broken. ... fundamentalism of the Georgists supporters that regard this as a panacea. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Whither the Georgies or wither the Georgies
    ... >> Then tell Joe Six Pack that he won't have to pay income taxes anymore. ... LVT is by definition affordable: it can't exceed what _somebody_ is ... less total tax under LVT. ... -- roughly the same as total land rent. ...
    (sci.econ)