Re: From the rich. To the rich?

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:12:09 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.

Yes, I've noticed that getting you to know perfectly self-evident and
indisputable facts of objective reality that disprove your false
beliefs is extremely arduous and unrewarding work.

So the high value of city land (say approx. 500 k$ per acre, over and above
farmland in the middle of nowhere) is due to the presence of capital.

No, it isn't, as I have already proved to you, but you refused to
know.

And the presence of people who work the capital (I thought that was obvious,
but apparently not).

It is not due to the presence of capital or people (who may or may not
work the capital, or have any capital to work) per se, but SOLELY to
the _ECONOMIC_ADVANTAGE_ obtained by the land's user. In a city, that
advantage is not due primarily to private capital investment, but to
good government; a large, educated, and industrious workforce;
transport, water, sewer and electrical power infrastructure; level
ground that is dry and solid enough to build on, but not solid rock,
etc.

When the 500 k$ is taxed away, it should be returned to the people who
created that value.

That is both impossible and ill-advised. There are three reasons to
recover the publicly created rent of land: to pay for the government
services and infrastructure that create much of it; to devote it to
the purposes and benefit of the community of people that creates the
rest of it, and to compensate those who are deprived of the
opportunity to use the land themselves.

Giving it away to the rich for doing nothing -- which, let's be
honest, is what you are proposing -- is not consistent with those
three reasons.

I suggested the capital owners.

And I have explained why you were wrong.

But I'm perfectly
willing to share it with the workers as well.

How magnanimous of you.

The only problem is how to allocate it.

And that's what democracy is for.

Since the most productive capital
(and workers) are having the most positive effect on land prices, most of
the rents should be returned to them.

We have no way of knowing who is having the most positive effect on
land prices. The factors you think add to land value in one location
may very well be reducing land value somewhere else, in a way you are
not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to understand (wouldn't be
unusual). That is very much the point.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages
Loading