FSP Community > Miscellaneous

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

<< < (16/28) > >>

BillG:

--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---

BillG: Land values should be collected and distributed as locally as is practical, water issues should correspond to watersheds or bio-regions, and the "Sky Trust" scheme is a national issue...

Duodecimal:
How do we decide the membership of these commissariats that decide the constitution of locality and bio-regions, and the extent of practicality?

Terry 1956:

--- Quote from: Johnny Liberty on August 16, 2003, 05:31:24 pm ---My understanding is that the "landholder" is taxed yearly on the value of the land, not any capital improvements built on the land. The trade off on this single tax on raw land is the elimination of income taxes taken from wages or capital (stocks, bonds, businesses).

As to the revenue calculated to be generated from such a scheme in one of free states, ?

--- End quote ---
                                                                               
There is a fairly good critque of Henry George's Single Tax Theory by Rothbard at  Mises.org, just use  the search.                                                                          

Terry 1956:

--- Quote from: Terry 1956 on September 02, 2003, 10:02:01 am ---
--- Quote from: Johnny Liberty on August 16, 2003, 05:31:24 pm ---My understanding is that the "landholder" is taxed yearly on the value of the land, not any capital improvements built on the land. The trade off on this single tax on raw land is the elimination of income taxes taken from wages or capital (stocks, bonds, businesses).

As to the revenue calculated to be generated from such a scheme in one of free states, ?

--- End quote ---
                                                                               
There is a fairly good critque of Henry George's Single Tax Theory by Rothbard at  Mises.org, just use  the search.                                                                          


--- End quote ---
                                                                                 I also have some ideas on why I think George's ideas aren't accurate and would not work, at least on a large scale. I also think his idea on land and natural resource ownership is wrong on political ethical grounds I will disuss more on that later.    I also think George's labor theory of value is wrong also.                                                                                  I  mostly agree with Rothbard on landownership procurement as he describes in "Ethics Of Liberty" in terms of political ethics. That being said I think his first user argument has its problems in that so much land has been aquired otherwise, and who would the first user pass it on to, all his children, his first born, his mothers family, his wifes family, or the elders of the clan.                                                                                       I think this is one area where Constitutional economic ( coming to agreements) may play a role and it's Wicksell unaniminty principle and some horse trading.                                                                                 For example  say the government took my  home to build the freeway, do I really want to dig up the pavement and rebuild. Well maybe I do, after all it was my property or was it and what about the property I know own? Well Possesing is 9/10 of the law but what if a Cherokee could prove the land was owned by his great great, great, great, great grandmother. Would it matter that I was part Cherokee? Now what if  another person proved his ancestors came from another tribe and they owned the land before the Cherokee? Now what if another person proved  the member of the other tribe property that he now lives own belongs to him by inheritance.                                                                          What about desendance of slaves? What about repayment for taxes taken?

Terry 1956:

--- Quote from: Norris on August 16, 2003, 07:37:52 pm ---Rythymstar,
If the govt, rather than the market determines the taxable value of the land, nobody would want to make any improvements on the land as doing so would introduce the unknown variable of taxes.
Currently, an average rent house has a land value of about 15% of the improvement value.  This is determined by the market value of lots vs  finished homes. If the rent is 1000 and the home is worth 100000, the annual tax is 15k-5%------considerably more than  the 12k gross annual rent.
Now the landlord has a negative cash flow and the govt turns to him to pay for a war ?  Sure sounds like landowners getting penalized if my arithmetic is correct.

If the answer is raise the rent, then the landlords option to do this hinges on the tenants alternatives. In such a pay-for-war scenario money would be tight and the landlord would lower his rent while his taxes are increased, thus a disproportionate load on the landlord. Passing the tax increase on is not a sure thing.

Also, you have not addressed the appreciation issue ( I guess there won't be any appreciation on a liability anyway)  will appreciation be taxed? How to compensate landowner for the one time loss of net value?

If, when such a plan is implemented, one landlord has a renthouse with a land value of 6% of the property value and another has a rent house with a land value of 35% of the property value, how will the bureaucrats compensate the latter?

Wouldn't everyone end up living in high rise apartments where land tax is low just to avoid tax?

If a landowner like me who doesn't recieve any rent and only profits by being a buy-low-sell-high-artist, does he pay any tax?














--- End quote ---
Think about this also, why shouldn't the rent be based on the unimproved value without adding in the   services offered in the community. I guess what I am trying to say set the value of the land as if it was in the middle of nowhere, the owner may habe being doing fine without all those people moving in, without the extra police service they wanted, the sewer service, the fire protection service, the new roads, schools etc. Also why should it be a annual payment, why not a lump sum payment. I have one partial of 3 acres which is appraised at 9,000 dollars, 20 years ago before so many people moved in, I could not have sold it for 750 an acre, in fact my grandparents sold a 20 acre partial next door to a paper mill for 350 acre. I recently bought an ajoining acre for 6,000 dollars. A farm near by broken up into lots sold between 5,000 an acre  and 10,000 an acre, a lot of it brush and woods. The change in value of 350 to 750 an acre to 5,000 to 10,000 an acre in 20 years is not justified in much of any way by additonal government services, it is strickly consumer demand.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version