|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 21:35:33 GMT
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? A very silly analysis. You do realise that the rent is paid (often to merchant bankers) in any case? The only thing you do by taxing the farmer for his work is give him a second tax to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 4, 2024 21:51:30 GMT
Yes I looked up Henry George. A system where Merchant bankers pay no tax and farmers pay loads. Who paid his bills? A very silly analysis. You do realise that the rent is paid (often to merchant bankers) in any case? The only thing you do by taxing the farmer for his work is give him a second tax to pay. And merchant bankers what do they pay? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 4, 2024 21:56:59 GMT
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) I rather thought you did. While I do approve of markets and competition and I think a single land tax has much to recommend it, I don't believe the market necessarily values effort fairly and think that something else is necessary. I don't like the idea of wealth taxes because like value added taxes, they disincentivize effort.
I'll have to think on.
|
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 4, 2024 22:05:58 GMT
A very silly analysis. You do realise that the rent is paid (often to merchant bankers) in any case? The only thing you do by taxing the farmer for his work is give him a second tax to pay. And merchant bankers what do they pay? I think the idea would need updating to the modern day to include rent seeking assets like intellectual property, banking licences, prfoessional licences and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 23:21:29 GMT
A very silly analysis. You do realise that the rent is paid (often to merchant bankers) in any case? The only thing you do by taxing the farmer for his work is give him a second tax to pay. And merchant bankers what do they pay? Like everyone else, they pay for what they take from / deny to others -You are thinking about this as if it is a form of income tax - the idea is NOT to tax incomes evenly, that is close to the very point of the land taxWith real estate exchange prices being flat and predictable, bankers change their business model to support the producer. Most people;s experience of banking presently is dominated by the gigantic loan they will spend their working lifetime repaying. This loan is (often mostly) dominated by a payment for a 'service' nobody is actually providing to anyone else (land). If you want to know why public services are paupers no matter what the policy, look no further - people are paying for the market value of public services in their mortgages, but the money is going 'elsewhere' and so producers 'must' be charged again (in income taxes) to actually provide the services they have already paid for.. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 4, 2024 23:37:11 GMT
And merchant bankers what do they pay? I think the idea would need updating to the modern day to include rent seeking assets like intellectual property, banking licences, prfoessional licences and so on. the same principle applies - rent seeking happens when someone is enabled charge for the removal of a barrier (removal of an artificial negative), rather than a service (the addition of a positive), However while land tenure is intrinsically like this, something like ip is a bit more subtle. You can make the argument that, while the barrier is artificial, the ip is only there at all because of the creator. In any case, it's clear the idea (if it is arguably good at it's core) has now been abused beyond reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 5, 2024 7:35:53 GMT
And merchant bankers what do they pay? I think the idea would need updating to the modern day to include rent seeking assets like intellectual property, banking licences, professional licences and so on. Agreed, at the very least. Its a different world to Henry Georges day and even back then I suspect they would have needed alternatives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2024 8:17:41 GMT
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. My concern is the same and always was. It was ever thus. Any change at all which seriously discomfits the wealthy elites who own or run everything that matters, including most of the land, is going to be an uphill struggle, to say the least. Politicians of whichever governing party tend to find their jobs a lot easier when they can keep some of the elites onside. That is the sad reality of power, even in democracies. Power has always been connected with wealth, wealth bringing power and power often bringing wealth. In every democracy on the planet, the local wealthy elites have always been the ones pulling most of the strings. This is unlikely ever to change because it has been this way since the dawn of civilisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 5, 2024 9:00:29 GMT
My concern is that the men with the land make the rules. So this ain't never gonna happen. My concern is the same and always was. It was ever thus. Any change at all which seriously discomfits the wealthy elites who own or run everything that matters, including most of the land, is going to be an uphill struggle, to say the least. This is very true. The vested are very aware of their interests in this region and they make sure the tax-man goes elsewhere (ie knocking on the door of people struggling to produce something). These interests would upturn everything (or try to ) to avoid having to work for a living. The only defence is to try to get people to understand the strong relationship between the economics of land and the dire state we are in. |
|
