FSP Community > Miscellaneous

Economics According To George (Henry George, that is...)

<< < (15/28) > >>

RhythmStar:
Elizabeth,

Just wanted to (belatedly) say thanks for the informative post regarding LVT and Libertarianism!

Reviewing all this information and the ongoing threads on the national sales tax (a.k.a. the 'Fair Tax' proposal), I think we can at least say that most of us agree that some form of Single Tax system, wherein the income tax is abolished, is the way to go.  On the points recommending one over the other, have these observations:

1) A consumption tax is more economically distortive than LVT, for all the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

2) A consumption tax requires extra rules to keep it from being regressive.  

3) A consumption tax does not produce a stable revenue stream for government, which encourages either government borrowing, or higher taxes to build up government supluses as a hedge against revenue shortfalls.  The LVT would be a very stable revenue source, allowing more effective cash management and reducing the structural incentives to raise taxes even when spending stays the same.

HOWEVER, there is no denying that switching to LVT would be overall more challenging than a consumption tax.   Not so much in urban areas, but in a large agricultural state, it might be hard to do.

:)

RS

BillG:

--- Quote ---HOWEVER, there is no denying that switching to LVT would be overall more challenging than a consumption tax.  Not so much in urban areas, but in a large agricultural state, it might be hard to do.
--- End quote ---

BillG: RS - not if NH is choosen as the Free State...with most taxes being raised thru the local property tax and everyone's tax bill clearly stating what the building is worth and what the land is worth...a "simple tax shift" strategy that allows different tax rates on buildings vs. land is all that is needed.

Read the bill by a current Geo-libertarian lawmaker that was voted down this year

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/hb0439.html

Duodecimal:
It's a consumption tax instead of social security, medicare, income, capital gain, payroll, interest, estate, and dividend taxes.

The biggest beef I have with the geolibertarian proposed taxes is that they are based on the philosophy that no one has right to land, only 'society', and that government, as a representative of 'society', has the God-given right to tax people who use land.

We can not reconcile our differences because I believe neither in god, nor 'society', nor government. Basing the rightness of a tax on such philosophy persuades me not at all.

The reason I favor a sales tax over a land tax as the lesser of evils is because consumption, by virtue of economic theory, is not the generator of wealth. Worrying about hurting demand is nonsense because it is human nature to demand everything. No one is ever happy, either wanting more than what they have or wanting what they have to be better. Demand is always infinite as long as any supply is desirable, and don't forget that there's 20% to 30% of tax already built in to the price of all consumables by way of taxation on businesses.

A sales tax that replaces all such federal taxes will have little net effect (it's been calculated to perhaps raise average prices by 3%). What it will do is remove the burden of accounting and reporting every private detail of our working lives to the Government. What it will do is make it obvious, on every receipt, what it costs to receive government 'benefits'. There's another thread on the national sales tax, so I'll end there.

Back to the subject of this thread -  taxation on land attacks wealth generation as much as taxation on capital gains, dividends, payrolls, and income. A tax on consumption may, on the other hand, contain the debt-financed exploding beast of US consumerism by making savings immediately more worthwhile (the savings rate is negative, which will have catastrophic consequences once foreign banks start realizing that the dollar's value is not the primary concern of the FRB).

So, I suppose we can only agree to disagree.

BillG:

--- Quote ---The biggest beef I have with the geolibertarian proposed taxes is that they are based on the philosophy that no one has right to land, only 'society', and that government, as a representative of 'society', has the God-given right to tax people who use land.

--- End quote ---

BillG: Wow Duo, this is a total mischaracterization...

Geo-libertarianism is based on a philosophy that no one has EXCLUSIVE right to land or better yet - everyone has...an EQUAL right to the commons - which includes land.


--- Quote ---We can not reconcile our differences because I believe neither in god, nor 'society', nor government. Basing the rightness of a tax on such philosophy persuades me not at all.
--- End quote ---

The economic rent that results from the monopolization of land and is created by increasing populations and investments in public infrastructure will - make no mistake about it - BE collected. When the property is sold all of the economic rent is pocketed by the individual landowner. So, the pertinent question then, if you believe that the money is society's and not the individual's, how the money is collected by what entity? Frankly I don't care who (God, society, government, or the easter bunny) does the collecting as long as the rent is returned to the rightful owners...

LeopardPM:
...and it is exactly in the differing opinions of who these 'rightful owners' are that is the source of disagreement...

got a question: who is 'everyone' in this 'everyone is the rightful owner' - is it everyone within 1 mile of the particular property, everyone within the city? the state? the nation? the world? off-world?

just wanting to understand and define things more clearly...

michael

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version