The fact that we don't pay tax for air yet is a big flaw of private market economy.
Even if the government did not tax air, we would still have to pay for its use by private companies. I wonder how users could choose the best and most effective company?... The only way I see it, individually wearable devices filled with air. Very convenient, since we could choose the best company and enjoy the benefits of capitalist competition. I hope I live to see this happy moment and breathe the pure air of freedom!That is a perfectly contradictory sentence. If the private sector did own the air then the government would tax it.
The fact that we don't pay tax for air yet is a big flaw of private market economy. If the air were in private hands, it would be much cleaner, fresher and more fragrant, and competition would lead to prices that would be quite moderate and affordable for the majority of the population.
P.S. I think I deserve next Nobel price in the field of economy.
So a land tax would be the ONLY tax? Wouldn't that be a great incentive for government to open almost all public lands to productive enterprises? The more land the government rents out the more they collect. Be careful what you wish for.In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up, they believe in socialism for land and capitalism for everything else. The logic is that while people can produce many stuff with their labor, they did not produce the land. Thus by paying a land value tax, they would be paying rent to mother nature. Georgists use this to argue that there should be a tax on land and that it should be the only tax. The movement died out after the early 20th century and very few jurisdictions ended up embracing this kind of tax.
A land value tax is a tax on land value. It differs from property taxes in that it only taxes the value of land, not anything built on it. I'm somewhat doubtful that this tax could collect enough revenue to replace everything else but it could have positive results. With the revenue collected, it could help reduce fiscal deficits, increase spending, or lower existing taxes. LVT would be progressive in nature because rich people tend to own more total land value with multiple houses and because poor people are more likely to rent. It would also discourage land speculation and instead encourage the efficient use of land. It's also less susceptible to tax evasion because of the full transparency of land value as opposed to personal or corporate income tax. The one issue I see is the potential negative effect on people who are land rich but cash poor such as on independent farmers and on people living in expensive cities (the cost being passed down as increased rent).
You may remember me posting about the consumption tax. A bunch of people pointed out that luxury goods tend to have elastic demand and that rich people would simply cheat the system by importing such goods. This is actually what happened in the early 90s when such as tax was implemented in the US; revenue turned out to be lower than expected. LVT doesn't have this problem because it cannot be moved and because it's not a commodity which is subject to supply and demand.
So a land tax would be the ONLY tax? Wouldn't that be a great incentive for government to open almost all public lands to productive enterprises? The more land the government rents out the more they collect. Be careful what you wish for.
In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up, they believe in socialism for land and capitalism for everything else. The logic is that while people can produce many stuff with their labor, they did not produce the land. Thus by paying a land value tax, they would be paying rent to mother nature. Georgists use this to argue that there should be a tax on land and that it should be the only tax. The movement died out after the early 20th century and very few jurisdictions ended up embracing this kind of tax.
A land value tax is a tax on land value. It differs from property taxes in that it only taxes the value of land, not anything built on it. I'm somewhat doubtful that this tax could collect enough revenue to replace everything else but it could have positive results. With the revenue collected, it could help reduce fiscal deficits, increase spending, or lower existing taxes. LVT would be progressive in nature because rich people tend to own more total land value with multiple houses and because poor people are more likely to rent. It would also discourage land speculation and instead encourage the efficient use of land. It's also less susceptible to tax evasion because of the full transparency of land value as opposed to personal or corporate income tax. The one issue I see is the potential negative effect on people who are land rich but cash poor such as on independent farmers and on people living in expensive cities (the cost being passed down as increased rent).
You may remember me posting about the consumption tax. A bunch of people pointed out that luxury goods tend to have elastic demand and that rich people would simply cheat the system by importing such goods. This is actually what happened in the early 90s when such as tax was implemented in the US; revenue turned out to be lower than expected. LVT doesn't have this problem because it cannot be moved and because it's not a commodity which is subject to supply and demand.
So basically tax the shit out of places like New York and San Francisco and let everyone else off the hook...... I'm all for it !!!!!The most valuable lands on the globe, the lands which yield the highest rent, are not lands of surpassing natural fertility, but lands to which a surpassing utility has been given by the increase of population. - Henry George
Vast majority of tax would come in from highly-populated areas. The incentive to open up public lands would be practically non-existent, especially considering the political backlash from environmentalists and anyone who loves a park.
I bet the farmers will not like this plan...
They won't be effected. He said primarily heavily populated areas would pay that tax. Sounds like a great idea. And the oil and gas corporations will be glad to have those pesky royalties they pay for government leases eliminated.I bet the farmers will not like this plan...
So basically tax the shit out of places like New York and San Francisco and let everyone else off the hook...... I'm all for it !!!!!
They won't be effected. He said primarily heavily populated areas would pay that tax. Sounds like a great idea. And the oil and gas corporations will be glad to have those pesky royalties they pay for government leases eliminated.
In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up...
Maybe it would encourage people o leave the big cities. That might mean more urban sprawl.Lol, well they're already in tax hell, but the beauty of it, to me, is how it would discourage the speculative behavior that leads to vacant urban land and rampant urban sprawl.
You really think the government would voluntarily give up those revenues? I really doubt it.Resource extraction would still be taxable under LVT. But instead of government projects I'd advocate for a dividend similar to what Alaskans get for their oil.
State and local Govts. get most of their money from real estate taxes already I don't see them giving that up. Income taxes are here to stay.Farmers should like this plan. It would untax their barns, homes, stables, storage sheds, etc. Rural land is far cheaper than urban/suburban land.
R. Farmers will go bankrupt
• Farmers would all go out of business ( skip to article ) • Farmers would be forced to sell off all their fields for development ( skip to...kaalvtn.blogspot.com
Sounds like the system we have now.So basically tax the shit out of places like New York and San Francisco and let everyone else off the hook...... I'm all for it !!!!!
I also think income taxes are here to stay, but for a different reason. The income tax gives government an unprecedented look at all your personal finances; how you make your money, where you make it, how much debt you have, what kind of debt, your investments, where you invest, your marital status, children, etc. ALL of your most personal information. I don't see them giving that up.State and local Govts. get most of their money from real estate taxes already I don't see them giving that up. Income taxes are here to stay.
You do realize it's Democrats doing most of that taxing?Sounds like the system we have now.
"Most" of the taxing is done by the federal government, currently an R operation, and operates as a big wealth transfer vehicle from economically successful (i.e., blue) states to impoverished (i.e., red) states. But I do realize the state-level Ds make things much, much worse. Is that the question?You do realize it's Democrats doing most of that taxing?
I'm not sure why the US adopted the principle to ignore the rights of the masses when it came to allowing privateers to exploit the public commons.In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up, they believe in socialism for land and capitalism for everything else. The logic is that while people can produce many stuff with their labor, they did not produce the land. Thus by paying a land value tax, they would be paying rent to mother nature. Georgists use this to argue that there should be a tax on land and that it should be the only tax. The movement died out after the early 20th century and very few jurisdictions ended up embracing this kind of tax.
A land value tax is a tax on land value. It differs from property taxes in that it only taxes the value of land, not anything built on it. I'm somewhat doubtful that this tax could collect enough revenue to replace everything else but it could have positive results. With the revenue collected, it could help reduce fiscal deficits, increase spending, or lower existing taxes. LVT would be progressive in nature because rich people tend to own more total land value with multiple houses and because poor people are more likely to rent. It would also discourage land speculation and instead encourage the efficient use of land. It's also less susceptible to tax evasion because of the full transparency of land value as opposed to personal or corporate income tax. The one issue I see is the potential negative effect on people who are land rich but cash poor such as on independent farmers and on people living in expensive cities (the cost being passed down as increased rent).
You may remember me posting about the consumption tax. A bunch of people pointed out that luxury goods tend to have elastic demand and that rich people would simply cheat the system by importing such goods. This is actually what happened in the early 90s when such as tax was implemented in the US; revenue turned out to be lower than expected. LVT doesn't have this problem because it cannot be moved and because it's not a commodity which is subject to supply and demand.
From what I've seen, the IRS taxes everybody at their rate, regardless of where they reside. It's the state and local taxes that vary so much. That there answers the question."Most" of the taxing is done by the federal government, currently an R operation, and operates as a big wealth transfer vehicle from economically successful (i.e., blue) states to impoverished (i.e., red) states. But I do realize the state-level Ds make things much, much worse. Is that the question?
State and local Govts. get most of their money from real estate taxes already I don't see them giving that up. Income taxes are here to stay.
Maybe it would encourage people o leave the big cities. That might mean more urban sprawl.
You really think the government would voluntarily give up those revenues? I really doubt it.
To prevent a bubble that means taxes should go up and government spending should go down to stabilize long term growth lines, there is less sound reason to run deficits in that condition, and the emphasis is on private investment and consumer spending being in larger control. Again, Georgism does not care about these things nor can it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?