|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 16:43:43 GMT
Excellent. Lets make a start ( No experts here, as far as I know)I think a land tax is in practice a good idea, for the average person this would partially replace council tax. For larger land owners it would be an encouragement to use the land (To pay the tax) Those with enormous gardens or land they use as a method of storing wealth would simply pay tax on it. There would need to be definitions of types of land (Agricultural/building/ fallow etc) This is in the main because the government rather than the individual designates land use. There would indeed be complications. There is for example a big difference between land being productively farmed to produce potatoes, carrots, onions, etc, or to provide grazing areas for animals we ultimately rely upon for meat and dairy products, and land simply used as hunting grounds for the mostly better off or otherwise not being used productively. Clearly taxing productive farmland to any great extent would risk undermining the competitiveness of our own farmers, many of whom are struggling already, whilst also resulting in food price inflation. These would not be welcome developments and need to be avoided. It is non-productive land and the value of expensive properties upon it which should be taxed rather than productive farmland. But defining what is productive and non-productive land is unlikely to be clear cut in many cases. For example Longleat is mostly not being used for productive farming, but the land is being used to allow wild animals of a kind not native to this country to roam free as a major tourist attraction. Would this be defined as a productive or non-productive use of the land? Or what if some entrepreneur has bought up a couple of acres to build a fun park on it that proves popular with locals and tourists, and makes a lot of money for the local economy whilst providing at least seasonal jobs? Would this be deemed a productive use of land? I would tend to say yes to both examples, yet already we are seeing ever more limits on where a full blooded land tax might be valid. Also, at what point in law would land deemed to be productively farmed? How could Lord Hufton-Tufton be prevented from avoiding the tax simply by buying a cow to wander around in a field all day? I think therefore that not only should there be a tax on non-productive land which needs careful definition, but also taxes on high value properties on the land, if it is to raise enough money. There is always complications, never suggestions or solutions they are much harder to grow. It wouldn't matter if Lord Hufton-Tufton put a single cow on his field and called it agricultural because he'd still pay tax on it, Indeed it would be the government that called it agricultural not Lord H-T. What Lord H-T could not do is call his sweeping lawns and gardens or putting green agricultural land, because there are already strict laws on the use of such land. We already define what is productive and not productive land, you can apply for set aside or wilding etc but the planning dept decides if you get it. Its done in the same way they decide if you can have an extension on your house. You pay a trained representative of the government to come and view it and the land around it. The guy building the funfair would need planning permission and the land would no longer be agricultural but come under various other headings. This stuff already exists.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 16:51:57 GMT
I was attracted to the idea of taxing land. I wasn't sure whether what was being proposed was the Georgist idea of taxing the unimproved value or the improved value. A personal hero - have his book on front of me now . George's notion of a single tax gained a lot a traction in the US and became a cause célèbre. Unfortunately, the twentieth century brought so many idiotic and wrong headed ideas (Keynes-ism, Macro), the language of economics became so twisted that it became increasingly difficult to communicate the simple idea of the single tax without first undoing the psychological damage inflicted in many by the popular propagation stupid ideas and stupid economic theories. Henry George';s notion is that land is taxed instead of work (production), not in addition. There was a similar movement in the UK, headed by Winston Churchill and Lloyd George. However this was defeated by (essentially) the landowners and the government set the pattern of taxing workers and producers (the income tax). This is now a set staple of government policy. Marxism is another idiotic idea (or has been made so). Marx's analysis that there is a form of enslavement encapsulated in capitalism and that it is a 'class issue' is not incorrect, unfortunately, he goes on to misdiagnose the problem so profoundly that his chief legacy is to misguide those who want justice into a cul-de-sac of taxing / hurting themselves. My concern with having only a land tax is that the diamond dealer earns far more but pays far less than the lettuce grower.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 16:56:23 GMT
Capitalism doesn't have a tendency toward monopoly. When other players aren't restricted, making any monopoly/ cartel mean anything in terms of price is just setting yourself up to be competed by a player not inside your circle (you shouldn't be able to do it). However, if the monopoly is a legally instituted and enforced restriction that prevents competition, obviously this doesn't apply. Putting it as plainly as i can, if you reduce unfairness, then you will also reduce the inequality caused by unfairness (obvious i know). It is just up to me to show why the land tenure arrangement we currently have is by far the most unfair thing in our system - it's unfairness and (ergo) the unfair inequality it creates dwarfs anything else you could mention. However, this isn't the same as saying that dealing with this unfairness will remove all inequality - sometimes inequality is fair and removing it unfair. I don't agree that capitalism does not have a tendency to monopoly and, although not conclusive evidence, most capitalist societies have laws preventing monopolies forming. It seems to me that even with a land tax it is possible that most productive land could end up controlled by a relatively small number of people or organizations. Such a situation would leave the poor in a position where, as you put it, they would be unable to compete away their disadvantage.
Clearly a land tax could be used as a means to ensure that the poor are not in actual poverty, but that would neither be fair nor reduce unfair equality. You may be able to demonstrate that a land is less unfair than the current system of taxing added value (I suspect that would be the case), but I think removing some level of unfairness or inefficiency would be insufficient evidence (at least for me) that the resultant system was as fair as possible.
Capitalism does not have a tendency toward monopoly, it's just that monopoly can be a feature of the world, or can be created by legal restrictions like a tenure system. To the extent there is capitalism, this tendency is tempered by the opportunity revealed by any heavy exploitation - if the cost inflicted becomes too high, any hurdle becomes worth paying for too many. There are two problem areas - the land issue and 'the connectivity issue..One telephone carrier or one social media company actually makes more sense to everyone involved (it would take force, to prevent it) , but this isn't really a feature of capitalism - if we had a socialist system , it would hard to imagine we would settle for a large number of (competing?) state telephone carriers, each with only a few thousand people connected to each other. You also have to be a little careful about a government deeming something a monopoly. It's quite possible to have a single provider that simply makes competition moot by providing what is needed cheaper than any potential rival. This situation is not harmful and not set in stone and ,as soon as a competitor learns the tricks needed to provide competition, they will have competition. To draw a line here regarding land - in the case of land, it is not just the case that the landowner has 'tricks' that mean he can provide cheaper than any potential rival, he can be the only provider of what he offers by definition and none of it was created by him.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 17:05:15 GMT
A personal hero - have his book on front of me now . George's notion of a single tax gained a lot a traction in the US and became a cause célèbre. Unfortunately, the twentieth century brought so many idiotic and wrong headed ideas (Keynes-ism, Macro), the language of economics became so twisted that it became increasingly difficult to communicate the simple idea of the single tax without first undoing the psychological damage inflicted in many by the popular propagation stupid ideas and stupid economic theories. Henry George';s notion is that land is taxed instead of work (production), not in addition. There was a similar movement in the UK, headed by Winston Churchill and Lloyd George. However this was defeated by (essentially) the landowners and the government set the pattern of taxing workers and producers (the income tax). This is now a set staple of government policy. Marxism is another idiotic idea (or has been made so). Marx's analysis that there is a form of enslavement encapsulated in capitalism and that it is a 'class issue' is not incorrect, unfortunately, he goes on to misdiagnose the problem so profoundly that his chief legacy is to misguide those who want justice into a cul-de-sac of taxing / hurting themselves. My concern with having only a land tax is that the diamond dealer earns far more but pays far less than the lettuce grower. Not by definition - a diamond mine is very valuable land indeed
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 4, 2024 17:12:59 GMT
I don't agree that capitalism does not have a tendency to monopoly and, although not conclusive evidence, most capitalist societies have laws preventing monopolies forming. It seems to me that even with a land tax it is possible that most productive land could end up controlled by a relatively small number of people or organizations. Such a situation would leave the poor in a position where, as you put it, they would be unable to compete away their disadvantage.
Clearly a land tax could be used as a means to ensure that the poor are not in actual poverty, but that would neither be fair nor reduce unfair equality. You may be able to demonstrate that a land is less unfair than the current system of taxing added value (I suspect that would be the case), but I think removing some level of unfairness or inefficiency would be insufficient evidence (at least for me) that the resultant system was as fair as possible.
Capitalism does not have a tendency toward monopoly, it's just that monopoly can be a feature of the world, or can be created by legal restrictions like a tenure system. To the extent there is capitalism, this tendency is tempered by the opportunity revealed by any heavy exploitation - if the cost inflicted becomes too high, any hurdle becomes worth paying for too many. There are two problem areas - the land issue and 'the connectivity issue..One telephone carrier or one social media company actually makes more sense to everyone involved (it would take force, to prevent it) , but this isn't really a feature of capitalism - if we had a socialist system , it would hard to imagine we would settle for a large number of (competing?) state telephone carriers, each with only a few thousand people connected to each other. You also have to be a little careful about a government deeming something a monopoly. It's quite possible to have a single provider that simply makes competition moot by providing what is needed cheaper than any potential rival. This situation is not harmful and not set in stone and ,as soon as a competitor learns the tricks needed to provide competition, they will have competition. To draw a line here regarding land - in the case of land, it is not just the case that the landowner has 'tricks' that mean he can provide cheaper than any potential rival, he can be the only provider of what he offers by definition and none of it was created by him. We'll have to agree to differ on the monopoly point. Perhaps a subject for a separate exchange sometime.
Aside from the obvious; incentive to add value; immovable; simple to apply etc. Can you set out why you think it would lead to a fair form of inequality. I should say it strikes me as having considerable advantages - I am still, though, struggling on the equality issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 19:29:50 GMT
There would indeed be complications. There is for example a big difference between land being productively farmed to produce potatoes, carrots, onions, etc, or to provide grazing areas for animals we ultimately rely upon for meat and dairy products, and land simply used as hunting grounds for the mostly better off or otherwise not being used productively. Clearly taxing productive farmland to any great extent would risk undermining the competitiveness of our own farmers, many of whom are struggling already, whilst also resulting in food price inflation. These would not be welcome developments and need to be avoided. It is non-productive land and the value of expensive properties upon it which should be taxed rather than productive farmland. But defining what is productive and non-productive land is unlikely to be clear cut in many cases. For example Longleat is mostly not being used for productive farming, but the land is being used to allow wild animals of a kind not native to this country to roam free as a major tourist attraction. Would this be defined as a productive or non-productive use of the land? Or what if some entrepreneur has bought up a couple of acres to build a fun park on it that proves popular with locals and tourists, and makes a lot of money for the local economy whilst providing at least seasonal jobs? Would this be deemed a productive use of land? I would tend to say yes to both examples, yet already we are seeing ever more limits on where a full blooded land tax might be valid. Also, at what point in law would land deemed to be productively farmed? How could Lord Hufton-Tufton be prevented from avoiding the tax simply by buying a cow to wander around in a field all day? I think therefore that not only should there be a tax on non-productive land which needs careful definition, but also taxes on high value properties on the land, if it is to raise enough money. There is always complications, never suggestions or solutions they are much harder to grow. It wouldn't matter if Lord Hufton-Tufton put a single cow on his field and called it agricultural because he'd still pay tax on it, Indeed it would be the government that called it agricultural not Lord H-T. What Lord H-T could not do is call his sweeping lawns and gardens or putting green agricultural land, because there are already strict laws on the use of such land. We already define what is productive and not productive land, you can apply for set aside or wilding etc but the planning dept decides if you get it. Its done in the same way they decide if you can have an extension on your house. You pay a trained representative of the government to come and view it and the land around it. The guy building the funfair would need planning permission and the land would no longer be agricultural but come under various other headings. This stuff already exists. I acknowledge all that. What it tends to show is that whilst any new ideas are in their practical application almost invariably more complex in terms of details, and unintended consequences have to be foreseen and addressed insofar as we can, good ideas can nevertheless be very positive if the political will to make them work is there. Too often, the political difficulties involved in doing the right thing are used as an excuse and justification for not doing it, by those who don't really want change for the better in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 20:34:17 GMT
My concern with having only a land tax is that the diamond dealer earns far more but pays far less than the lettuce grower. Not by definition - a diamond mine is very valuable land indeed In a foreign land
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 20:44:32 GMT
Not by definition - a diamond mine is very valuable land indeed In a foreign land It's also arguably 'unfair' that people can work abroad and pay a lower tax than they would here. So long as they can't use that money to buy unfairness here, it's not really our problem.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 20:47:14 GMT
There is always complications, never suggestions or solutions they are much harder to grow. It wouldn't matter if Lord Hufton-Tufton put a single cow on his field and called it agricultural because he'd still pay tax on it, Indeed it would be the government that called it agricultural not Lord H-T. What Lord H-T could not do is call his sweeping lawns and gardens or putting green agricultural land, because there are already strict laws on the use of such land. We already define what is productive and not productive land, you can apply for set aside or wilding etc but the planning dept decides if you get it. Its done in the same way they decide if you can have an extension on your house. You pay a trained representative of the government to come and view it and the land around it. The guy building the funfair would need planning permission and the land would no longer be agricultural but come under various other headings. This stuff already exists. I acknowledge all that. What it tends to show is that whilst any new ideas are in their practical application almost invariably more complex in terms of details, and unintended consequences have to be foreseen and addressed insofar as we can, good ideas can nevertheless be very positive if the political will to make them work is there. Too often, the political difficulties involved in doing the right thing are used as an excuse and justification for not doing it, by those who don't really want change for the better in the first place. My concern is that the men with the land make the rules. So this ain't never gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 20:50:59 GMT
It's also arguably 'unfair' that people can work abroad and pay a lower tax than they would here. So long as they can't use that money to buy unfairness here, it's not really our problem. The problem is the other way round. The manufacturer here pays a land tax, the diamond importer does not. Equally the fridge importer does not pay land tax but the fridge manufacturer here does.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 20:59:11 GMT
It's also arguably 'unfair' that people can work abroad and pay a lower tax than they would here. So long as they can't use that money to buy unfairness here, it's not really our problem. Equally the fridge importer does not pay land tax but the fridge manufacturer here does. The fridge importer has to pay for the manufacture of the fridge, including all taxes at its origin. As a fridge manufacturer, would you rather pay a tax on each fridge you build ( or each dollar you make) or have your taxes and rent paid rolled into one bill for the market value of the land you occupy?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 21:07:46 GMT
Capitalism does not have a tendency toward monopoly, it's just that monopoly can be a feature of the world, or can be created by legal restrictions like a tenure system. To the extent there is capitalism, this tendency is tempered by the opportunity revealed by any heavy exploitation - if the cost inflicted becomes too high, any hurdle becomes worth paying for too many. There are two problem areas - the land issue and 'the connectivity issue..One telephone carrier or one social media company actually makes more sense to everyone involved (it would take force, to prevent it) , but this isn't really a feature of capitalism - if we had a socialist system , it would hard to imagine we would settle for a large number of (competing?) state telephone carriers, each with only a few thousand people connected to each other. You also have to be a little careful about a government deeming something a monopoly. It's quite possible to have a single provider that simply makes competition moot by providing what is needed cheaper than any potential rival. This situation is not harmful and not set in stone and ,as soon as a competitor learns the tricks needed to provide competition, they will have competition. To draw a line here regarding land - in the case of land, it is not just the case that the landowner has 'tricks' that mean he can provide cheaper than any potential rival, he can be the only provider of what he offers by definition and none of it was created by him. We'll have to agree to differ on the monopoly point. Perhaps a subject for a separate exchange sometime.
Aside from the obvious; incentive to add value; immovable; simple to apply etc. Can you set out why you think it would lead to a fair form of inequality. I should say it strikes me as having considerable advantages - I am still, though, struggling on the equality issue.
What i mean by a fair form of inequality is - let me use flowery language - that everyone gets the market value of what they add for others with their efforts. Of course some people's efforts go further than other's (inequality)
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 21:11:54 GMT
Equally the fridge importer does not pay land tax but the fridge manufacturer here does. The fridge importer has to pay for the manufacture of the fridge, including all taxes at it's origin. As a fridge manufacturer, would you rather pay a tax on each fridge you build ( or each dollar you make) or have your taxes and rent paid rolled into one bill for the market value of the land you occupy? Does the UK manufacturer not have to pay all the other taxes? Anyway the point I was making is that very much like VAT and employment, It encourages manufacturers to move to countries without a land tax
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 21:19:33 GMT
The fridge importer has to pay for the manufacture of the fridge, including all taxes at it's origin. As a fridge manufacturer, would you rather pay a tax on each fridge you build ( or each dollar you make) or have your taxes and rent paid rolled into one bill for the market value of the land you occupy? Does the UK manufacturer not have to pay all the other taxes? not with a single tax (Henry George). No. Once a manufacture has paid his rent, everything else he makes by use of the land, on his own or in combination with others, is his to keep. However, the simplification and clarification of the tax obligation is only one of the minor advantages
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 21:29:33 GMT
Does the UK manufacturer not have to pay all the other taxes? not with a single tax (Henry George). No. Once a manufacture has paid his rent, everything else he makes by use of the land, on his own or in combination with others, is his to keep. However, the simplification and clarification of the tax obligation is only one of the minor advantages Yes I looked up Henry George. A system where Merchant bankers pay no tax and farmers pay loads. Who paid his bills?
|
|