Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
File: rigtwinglpidiots.jpg (41KB, 754x382px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 754x382px
Why arnt you a Georgist /pol/?
>Georgeism reconciles common land rights with private tenure, free markets and modern capitalism.
>Those who got the upper hand by securing land tenures would support public services, so wages and commerce and capital formation could go untaxed.
>To pay the taxes, landowners would have to use the land by hiring workers (or selling to owner-operators and owner-residents). This would raise demand for labor; labor, through consumption, would raise demand for final products.
>To pay the workers, landowners would have to produce and sell goods, hereby raising supply and precluding inflation. Needed capital would come to their aid by virtue of its being untaxed. Thus, George would cut the Gordian knot of modern dilemma-bound economics by raising demand, raising supply, raising incentives, improving equity, freeing up the market, supporting government, fostering capital formation, and paying public debts, all in one simple stroke.
cont...
>>
File: billbo.jpg (44KB, 400x252px) Image search:
[Google]
44KB, 400x252px
>>135890374
>George's proposal enables us to lower taxes on labor without raising taxes on capital. Indeed, it lets us lower taxes on both labor and capital at once, and without reducing public revenues.
> Georgist tax policy reconciles equity and efficiency. Taxing land is progressive because the ownership of land is so highly concentrated among the most wealthy,'8 and because the tax may not be shifted. It is efficient because it is neutral among rival land-use options: the tax is fixed, regardless of land use. This is one favourable point on which many modern economists actually agree, although they keep struggling against it
> Georgist tax policy contains urban sprawl, and its heavy associated costs, without overriding market decisions or consumer preferences, simply by making the market work better. land values are the product of demand for location; they are marked by continuity in space. That shows quite simply that people demand compact settlement and centrality. A well-oiled land market will give it to them.
>>
File: landright.jpg (12KB, 327x154px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 327x154px
>>135890434
> Georgist tax policy creates jobs without inflation, and without deficits. "Fiscal stimulus," in the shallow modern usage, is a euphemism for running deficits, often with funny money. George's proposed land tax might be called, rather, "true fiscal stimulus". It stimulates demand for labor by promoting employment; it precludes inflation as the labor produces goods to match the new demand. It precludes deficits because it raises revenue. That is its peculiar reconciliatory genius: it stimulates private work and investment in the very process of raising revenue. It is the only tax of any serious revenue potential that does not bear down on and suppress production and exchange. As I have noted, George's fiscal policy takes two problems and composes them into one solution.
> George's land tax lets a polity attract people and capital en masse, without diluting its resource base. This is by virtue of synergy, the ultimate rationale for Chamber-of-Commerce boosterism. Urban economists like William Alonso have illustrated the power of such synergy by showing that bigger cities have more land value per head than smaller ones. (Land value is the resource base of a city.) Urbanists like Jane Jacobs and Holly Whyte have written on the intimate details of how this works on the streets. Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource) philosophizes on the power of creative thought generated when people associate freely and closely in large numbers. Henry George made the same points in 1879
>>
File: marxandfriedmanonthesamepage.jpg (61KB, 640x480px) Image search:
[Google]
61KB, 640x480px
>>135890498
>Georgist policies encourage the conservation of ecology and environment while also making jobs, by abating sprawl. It is a matter of focusing human activity on the good lands, thus meeting demands there and relieving the pressure to invade lands that are now wild and marginal for human needs. Sprawl in the urban environment is the kind most publicized, but there is analogous sprawl in agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation and other land uses and industries.
>Georgist policies strengthen public revenues while in the same process promoting economy in government. Anti-governmentalists often identify any tax policy with public extravagance. Georgist tax policy, on the contrary, saves public funds in many ways. By facilitating the creation of jobs it lowers welfare costs, unemployment compensation, doles, aid to families with dependent children and all that. It lowers jail and police costs, and all the enormous private expenditures, precautions, and deprivations now taken to guard against theft and other crime. Idle hands are not just wasted, they steal and destroy
>>
i like it
it seems better than getting screwed with pure ancap
>>
>>135890374
Georgist single-tax system taxes land value according to the unworked value of the land, which gives urban/industrial landowners enormous benefits over rural/agrarian landowners. A man who owns a hundred acres of farms that produce a million dollars per year would not be able to trade with a man who owns a single acre of city that produces a million dollars a year, even if the two produced products/rent of equal monetary value, because the city property has a hundred times less taxes and its market value would be increased accordingly. While Georgian single-tax originally seems like a progressive tax, in truth it harshly taxes owners of undeveloped land and unduly rewards the owners of developed land, creating a bloated upper class of urban industrial landowners.
>>
>>135890374
It's just a planned economy by another name. Takes absolutely no account of the human factor and assumes that people are merely living to work.
When one fails, then what? Domino effect on related industry.
>>
>>135891661
As the value of the city land goes up, so do the taxes paid on it. Though the value of the buildings on it would be disregarded when assessing taxes, the taxes would be based on the value, not the area, of the land. So both people in your example would pay similar amounts.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5