We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The best way to keep people poor Magatte Wade is an African anti-poverty activist. No, not like you’re thinking – she’s an actual anti-poverty activist. In fact her chosen term to describe what she does is “prosperity activist”.
In a tweet made yesterday, she wrote,
https://x.com/magattew/status/1986537994984058913
The best way to keep people poor:
Convince them their poverty is someone else’s fault and only the government can save them.
I think that is true.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Yes indeed.
And it must be made clear that the “scientific justification” for the idea that people are poor because other people are rich, the Labour Theory of Value, was refuted in the 19th century. Even in the early 19th century many economists had shown the Labour Theory of Value was false – whether Gossen and Rau in Germany, Ferrara in Italy, or, in Britain the home of the Labour Theory of Value, Richard Whately and Samuel Bailey – however some economists continued to defend the Labour Theory of Value till the 1870s when such economists as Carl Menger finally ended this.
We are well past 1870 now – it is 2025, there is no excuse for someone coming out with the Marxist “exploitation” tap dance – any more than there would be for someone coming out with David Ricardo’s theory on LAND – ended by Frank Fetter more than a century ago.
One can still say that some inequality is artificial – the product of Credit Money (rather than honest commodity money such as gold or silver – with lending coming from Real Savings, the actual sacrifice of consumption, rather than the legalized fraud of Credit Expansion) – but that is hardly a new discovery, it was explained by Richard Cantillon some 300 years ago, which is why it is called the “Cantillon Effect”.
Lastly on high taxes – if high taxes produced equality then California and New York City which (local, State and Federal together) have absurdly high tax rates on “the rich” wold be know for equality, they are known for the opposite – very radical inequality.
It’s how the left works: All your problems are the fault of someone else, and government can penalize them and solve your problem. Ultimately, everyone is blamed and penalized into poverty, but all your problems are still someone elses fault. Just not governments’.
David Ricardo’s view of land (which led to the absurdities of Henry George) is, I suspect, a hangover from a certain theological (yes theological) view.
Both Roman Law and Common Law view land as unowned before it is claimed – but certain theological thinkers (a minority – but an important minority) hold that the Book of Genesis means that God gave the world to humanity in-common (in common) – so that private ownership has to be “justified” by either “as much and as good left for others” (clearly impossible), or, alternatively, some form of financial payment – whilst this has always been a minority interpretation of the Book of Genesis it has been argued for by some scholars, notably by John Locke – and it is possible (possible) that such people as Thomas Paine and David Ricardo where influenced by John Locke’s theological view of the Book of Genesis – a view he shared with the German scholar Samuel Pufendorf and some others.
John Locke is vague (very vague) on how much this Poor Law payment should be – but Thomas Paine was more explicit – arguing (for example in his book “Agrarian Justice”) that there should be a tax of up to 100% (yes – 100%) or large estates -= which would, supposedly, fund various government services and benefits.
Henry George and others in the 19th century described this a form of “citizen’s pension” with either everyone, or everyone below a certain income, being given an income to be financed by a Land Tax.
The economics of all this is quite false – but its origins are in theology rather than economics.
For example, John Locke declares that a ship’s captain with a cargo of food who sails on to another port, seeking a higher prices for their cargo, is “guilty of murder” if anyone starves in the first port – even if the captain had no contract to sell there.
From a legal point of view (Roman or Common Law) this view of John Locke is utterly false – but he was thinking in the terms of his particular view of scripture, rather than law. A minority view of scripture.
The virtue of justice is to-each-their-own, the virtue of charity (benevolence) is about helping others – but voluntarily helping them.
Using force (“pay or we send you to prison and take your stuff by force”) is not the virtue of charity, or the virtue of justice – it is “Social Justice” the opposite and sworn enemy of justice, and it leads (regardless of its intention) to more-and-worse poverty over time, not less poverty over time.
The Papal States in history were famous (or rather infamous) for the state granaries and so on (which tried to ape the Roman Empire). Pope Gregory XIII is famous for his reform of the calendar – but in the Papal States he was better known for his demand that all property owners (even families who held property for many generations) prove their “right” to it – he did this in order to have a (threadbare) justification for taking property in order to fund what he considered worthy causes.
The Papal States became infamous for both poverty and banditry – but it was not alone.
Even once wealthy Florence went down the road of high “Progressive” taxes and various benefits for the poor – visitors in the 1700s were shocked at just how poverty stricken Florence had become.
As for Africa – we were told that such failures as Ghana (independent from 1957 – “seek you first the Political kingdom, then all else will be given unto you” – said the blasphemous ruler Kwame Nkrumah – a Mamdani type figure promising that government could do everything for people) and socialist Tanzania were due to not inheriting an advanced infrastructure – although this justification for “Social Justice” disaster does not explain how everything got WORSE after independence under Social Justice rulers.
However, Rhodesia and South Africa were advanced countries – and 45 years of Social Justice rule in Rhodesia and 31 years of Social Justice rule in South Africa have utterly discredited this doctrine – anyone who trots it out now (AFTER all this) is not honestly mistaken, they know it will lead to horror – and that is what they want.
I have been extremely impressed with Wade ever since she appeared on this eye-opening episode of Triggernometry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Deq3eg1CM
@Patrick Crozier
OMG, thanks for sharing that video. I watched it and what an amazing woman she is. My God there is more education in economics in that one hour video that in an economics degree from Harvard. Here are some quotes, containing profound wisdom.
“The solution to poverty is prosperity, and entrepreneurs are the source of prosperity”.
“Corruption is a sign there are too many laws, and too many pointless laws”.
“get working on the solution, otherwise, sit down and shut up”.
“No matter what was done TO you [including colonialism] you are responsible for what you do FOR you.”
I second Patrick’s recommendation. Please watch, be edified and educated, and restore your hope in Africa’s future. And, god knows, most of what she suggests is equally desperately needed here in the west.
Oh, just one other thing about my new favorite economist Magatte Wade, in a Forbes interview she gave she said:
That is why I turned down business degrees at Harvard and Stanford, because they would have ruined me as an entrepreneur.
A wise woman indeed.
Here is another YouTube video of her 3 years ago with Jordan Peterson.
https://youtu.be/o74rQmLRqtA?si=jcD1VjzMBOzibQiv
She is a breath of fresh air.
I should add to my “fresh air” comment – I now know several important and foundational things about Africa that I didn’t know before listening to her.
Thank you Patrick – and thank you David. Both excellent films.
After watching the 1st half of the video at David’s link, i think that i heard her story before. Not that i mind hearing it again!
“…and only a socialist government can save them.”
Communists worked out a long time ago that the west was too rich and too free to be much interested in communism. Obviously the west needed to be made less rich and less free first. Seems to be working so far.
Roue le Jour – correct.
This is sometimes called the “Cloward and Piven” approach from two Marxist academics (husband and wife) who deliberately helped design American government schemes in the 1960s to INCREASE poverty and social dysfunction – it was nothing to do with “unintended consequences” of government action – far left academic advisers in Western countries (my own half brother was one of them – in Britain) were very much doing this on-purpose – to undermine Western “capitalist” societies.
However, the approach is a lot older than the 1960s – and was not created by strict Marxists. For example, in the early 1900s there was a government investigation into how the British Poor Law was working.
The “Majority Report” was written by people who had spent their life helping the poor, often with their own hands – and unpaid, it suggested practical ways to reduce poverty over time (make more individuals and families independent of the staste) – this report was, basically, thrown out.
The “Minority Report” was written by socialist totalitarians (people who believed in working towards a total state – Fabians), the Liberal government, basically, followed its proposals – which were designed (yes designed) to INCREASE the number of people dependent on government.
Also by 1906 it was obvious that the 1875 Disraeli Trade Union Act (which legalized obstruction, under the military name of “picketing” and gave unions partial immunity from being sued) was causing harm – unemployment, and problems for the competitiveness of British industry.
So what did the British government do? Did it repeal the 1875 Act (which did not “legalize trade unions” – they were already legal, the 1875 gave them powers that no one should have) – no it did not, it passed the 1906 Act which gave the unions even MORE power.
The “Liberal” government denied the 1906 Act would, over time, increase unemployment (unemployment caused by the 1875 Act) – but it then set up “Labour Exchanges” to pretend to be doing something about the unemployment it knew its actions would create.
The establishment, or at least part of it, has been rotten for a very long time – for example in the United States the first President to despise the Constitution was not Barack Obama, it was Tucker Carlson’s hero – “Teddy” Roosevelt (if Senator Roscoe Conkling had lived Mr Roosevelt would never have got anywhere in politics – but that is another story).
President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt despised the very idea of limits on government power (“to Hell with the Constitution when the people need coal” – without mentioning that the reason for the coal shortage was the sort of union action that he-himself supported), or the idea that natural resources (including land) belonged to individuals and families – rather than to “the community” (the government – see the Progressive Party Platform of 1912) and he also despised the Rule of Law – believing that people he disliked, such as Italians accused of being part of the Mafia (but had been convicted of no crime) should be lynched (murdered-by-mobs – hanged to death without being convicted of any crime).
“Teddy” Roosevelt in America, “Radical Joe” Chamberlain in Britain – and on and on. More and more of these people over time.
And all very “respectable” and admired – even when they were friends (as Joseph Chamberlain was) of Fabian totalitarianism-by-the-installment-plan people.
Morocco is part of Africa – and President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt is known for rescuing American hostages there (hence such films as “The Wind and the Lion”) – but whey you ask people what President Theodore Roosevelt actually DID, most people are unsure – they are “fuzzy on the details”.
What he did was as follows – he threatened the government of Morocco into paying the ransom and giving in to other demands of the abductors.
This is not a good thing, it is a disgrace, it was disgraceful behaviour by President Theodore Roosevelt – but presented as a noble deed.
Such is the way that history is falsified – people (such as Tucker Carlson) given a false impression of what historical figures actually did.
There are endless other examples – such as the mass death in Ireland in the late 1840s being blamed on “laissez faire”, with the CRUSHING TAXATION carefully NOT mentioned.
If anyone comes out with the line “the taxes in Ireland (Poor Law Tax and so on) were on the landowners” – you are right down on all fours with people who think that income or wealth taxes on “the rich” do not hurt the general community.
All taxes hurt the entire community – and the more the taxation, the more the damage (over what could have been achieved without the taxation), and there is nothing special about land-taxation.
Whether it is the land economics of David Ricardo or the land theology (yes theology) of John Locke – it is WRONG.
Utter and complete nonsense. If (if) one agrees with taxation, which is very much up for grabs, then LVT is the most sensible version of taxation (even whilst I’d rather not do compulsory taxation)
If you disagree, then restate the reasons why (“it was refuted” doesn’t by Fetter doesn’t cut it – he’s been utterly eviscerated many times over, and is a laughing stock)
Do it yourself. Put forth the arguments that Fetter made and defend them. Go on.
Wrong as ever Neonsnake. Income or capital gains taxes have the means to pay baked in, taxes on unrealised assets such a land taxes may require disposal of the asset to pay, a tax on mere ownership. LVT is where feudalism & economic fascism intersect.
@Perry de Havilland (Prague)
Wrong as ever Neonsnake. Income or capital gains taxes have the means to pay baked in, taxes on unrealised assets such a land taxes may require disposal of the asset to pay, a tax on mere ownership. LVT is where feudalism & economic fascism intersect.
FWIW, in Florida the governor has been on a bit of a rant about this and his desire to eliminate the property tax, which is effectively that tax being proposed for the very reasons you state. Florida also has no income tax or capital gains tax, so in that regime the government would be funded by sales tax and I suppose some miscellaneous transaction and business type taxes. Which, FWIW, would be my ideal model. Of course Florida is still part of the USA and so Florida residents while benefiting at the state level have overwhelming burdens of Federal taxation, but, nonetheless it is an interesting model.
What Fraser Orr said at 4:03pm re Florida toying with eliminating property taxes. I soooo hope they do it.
And then Trump uses the Bully Pulpit to advertise this far and wide.
If we can get 3-5 States to do this, it’ll be a thing! But let’s start with one!
If it weren’t for the Hurricanes, bugs, anacondas (or is it pythons?), and humidity, I’d move to Florida in a heartbeat. But here’s a secret: since the Earth is warming, Portland has been drying out a bit. The green side of the Pacific NW in fact. A little drier and what a paradise! Well, once we run the weirdos out.
neonsnake again writes things that are clearly not true – for example writing as if Ricardo’s economics of land (adopted and made more extreme by Henry George) had not been refuted (by Frank Fetter and others) rather more than a century ago.
There are two sorts of discussion – one sort is where people have a mutual framework of beliefs – they disagree on some things, but they have some basic principles in common which make useful discussion possible.
The other sort of “discussion” is statements (insults or other statements) before human beings engage in warfare.
Any discussion between anyone here and neonsnake is the second sort of discussion.
At my time of life I do not much care about being killed (why would I?), but I do care about irritated – so I would ask neonsnake, politely – as one enemy to another, please go away Sir.
If you wish to kill me – do it, but please stop irritating me – you have no business here Sir.
As for taxes on land – although NOT called LVT, most taxes in Ireland in Ireland in the late 1840s were indeed taxes on land. The idea that they only hurt landowners and, somehow, did not hurt the rest of society, is false.
Taxes are real, and in many cases are necessary. The form of those taxes – the basis for determining taxation levels – can always be argued, but even a libertarianish person wants firefighters. (Yeah, yeah, they could be private, but save that for a proper discussion.)
So why NOT tax based on real estate value?
In the US, real estate tax funds primarily local and state expenditures, not federal. Looking at my property tax statement just now, I see some of those uses listed:
Progressive taxation is here to stay. The value of my big home plunked down in my community is as good a measure as any of how I benefit from my community’s public works. Property taxation (here, at least) is funding local efforts, and is doing so proportionately to the value of what I own.
If we simply argue “tax is bad”, then it’s tough defending property tax. But that’s not the argument here. The argument has to do with how we determine my tax level, and yours. Save the “tax is bad”, again, for a different post.
I’d say that my property tax – based on the value of the property I own in the community – is as just and fair – maybe more so – as a basis for deciding people’s level of responsibility for fire protection, roads, cops, water systems, and the like than is current profit or income.
And if you get bent out of shape about the oldsters with no more income but a million dollar house, whose tax level now outstrips their income’s ability to pay it – how is that different from the concept of creative destruction? Let’s move that resource over to someone who can afford it and who can put it to better use.
To the extent that this opinion is in disagreement with Mr. Marks, I apologize, and will leave this site if he wishes me to.
Paul, on irritation. Over the years of Samizdata, I have found the worlds of two authors to be helpful. When contributors to Samizdata react to events; the world of Lewis Carroll appears. When we are interacting amongst ourselves, we become characters as drawn by A.A. Milne. Thus for me, at least, irritation becomes whimsy.
I might as well add my views on taxation of real estate, although i have no strong feelings about it.
First: the most important thing is to avoid double or multiple taxation. If you are taxed on your income, and then use your post-tax income to buy a home, and then pay tax on your home, that is worse than being taxed only on the income, or only on the home.
Second: taxation is a (dis)incentive. If you are taxed on your income, that is an incentive to work less. If you are taxed on your real estate, that is an incentive to buy less of it. But the supply of work is more elastic than the supply of real estate. (A point in favor of the LVT.)
Third: the value of your income, bank accounts, and stockmarket portfolio can be accurately assessed, while the value of you real estate cannot. OTOH it is easier to hide your income and your financial assets (not to mention your income from renting your real estate) from the taxman, than to hide your real estate.
Fourth: in an LVT regime, people would think seriously about buying real estate. People will think whether they are confident of being able to pay the LVT (but will be happy to have to pay no other taxes).
The real problem is for people with fixed assets (if i remember the lingo): people who already own real estate when the LVT regime comes into effect. (On the balance, a point against the LVT — unless there is a solution to the problem.)
Some more points might come to mind later.
@bobby b
Taxes are real, and in many cases are necessary. The form of those taxes – the basis for determining taxation levels – can always be argued, but even a libertarianish person wants firefighters. (Yeah, yeah, they could be private, but save that for a proper discussion.)
I think taxes are probably necessary too, however, the principle on which taxes are set today is largely “how can the government extract the most money without causing the peasants to turn up with pitchforks and torches.”
All taxes are bad, but some are far worse than others. Some of the principles I think that are important are:
* Prefer local taxes over larger scope taxes
* Prefer fees over taxes which connect the activity to the charge
* Prefer taxes as small as possible
* Prefer taxes as non intrusive as possible
* Prefer taxes that are visible, but inexpensive to collect
* Prefer taxes as having as few side effects as possible
* Prefer “fair” taxes over “unfair” taxes — whatever “fair” means
So I am far less up in arms about city taxes than I am about federal taxes, but of course our tax pyramid is upside down so that it is federal taxes that are most burdensome. And why is that a good thing? Simply because if I don’t like my local taxation regime I can move to somewhere that better suits my preferences (people do this all the time for example, to move to a better school district or to move out into the country to avoid burdensome city taxes and regulations.)
So I am not up in arms at all about taxes paying for firefighters, in fact I think ambulance services should be provided by the city, which they generally aren’t in most American states. (Why? Because if you are in an ambulance you often aren’t in a position to make a good economic decision or call for help from your chosen provider.) However, nearly all homes are required to have home owners insurance and one could easily imagine those insurers requiring a subscription to a local fire department as a fee rather than a tax. Again, I don’t think this is all that important to me, but for sure many government services can be provided without local taxes.
And it is why I much prefer the idea of a sales tax as the only form of taxation (except perhaps excise taxes, and things like road tax.) In a sense it is a “fee to use the economy”, it is entirely non intrusive, can be applied at all levels with relative ease, is cheap to collect, is very visible and so forth.
Property taxes feels like a denial of the basic idea that I own my house. I have to pay rent to the government and if I don’t they take my house. I certainly understand the justification, but it just feels that you can’t actually own property with the property tax in place, and owning property seems to me to be part of the very essence of being an an adult, in charge of your own life.
Need it be said that the absolute worst type of tax is the income tax, which is huge, extremely expensive to collect and equally expensive to pay, unbelievably intrusive, hidden via the withholding or PAYE system, and not only by accident but also by design, deeply manipulates the economy in every miniscule corner. And perhaps most importantly, collected at the top level so entirely impossible to escape.
Oh yes, here is another point to consider.
Fifth: If you tax income from wealth (interest, dividends, capital gains, etc) but do not tax the real estate that people are living in, then you distort investment: people have a government-created incentive to invest in homes rather than the stockmarket, just to avoid paying rent.
Somebody, let’s call her Mary, might choose to invest in the stockmarket to pay for rent in old age.
Somebody else, let’s call her Carol, might prefer to buy a home.
Mary pays tax on her investment income, and in addition (indirectly) she pays her landlord’s income tax on rental income. Carol pays nothing.
Why should the government favor Carol over Mary?
(One more point in favor of the LVT.)
Fraser:
Oh yes, i have mostly been comparing the LVT to income-tax-based regimes as we presently suffer; but there are other alternatives.
The fact is, you don’t own your house. The mere fact that the State CAN impose property taxes, even if it does not impose them, is proof that the government de facto owns your house.
Not to mention eminent domain and no-knock raids.
By these definitions, anyone who is stronger than you or better armed than you owns you. Everything we “own” can be taken from us by gov, either through regulation, taxation, or forced sale.
Nothing about LVT alters this. Owning land simply gives a leverage point for liens and attachments.
There is one good thing about the present political situation – at least in the United States. Evil no longer hides itself.
Only a few years ago Barack Obama carefully hid his past – and the media helped him, anyone who said that President Obama had a socialist, indeed Marxist, past (associations, membership of groups, and-so-on) was screamed at (the most popular scream being “Racist!”). And anyone who asked President Obama “have you changed your opinions – and, if so, when and for what reasons?” got no honest answer – because Barack Obama, and the media and establishment generally, denied that he had ever had opinions, beliefs, that were evil and needed to be changed.
With Mayor Elect Mamdani the situation is quite different – both his Collectivism (based on the lie that the poor are poor because of the rich – the class war doctrine that the quotation Magette Wade rightly denounces) and his hatred are openly on display – in years of “Tweets” (and other written statements), and he openly proclaims both his socialism and his class war beliefs.
Someone could say “I did not know what Barack Obama believed – it was hidden from me” – no one can honestly say that about Mayor Elect Mamdani. At least this is true of people who can read English – I fully accept that many of the voters (immigrants and others) in New York City now can not read English to a sufficient level to understand criticism of Mayor Elect Mamdani.
As for fools such as Mr Alex Soros (Mr Soros senior is not really in charge of the money any more – he is in his 90s) – they have helped create a monster, a “friend” who would happily murder them if he judged the time was correct for such a tactical move. Mr Alex Soros may find one day that it is not “only” (as if the murder of seven million people was a trivial matter) the seven million Jews “between the river and the sea” that those who serve evil, such as Mayor Elect Mamdani, wish to destroy – and it is hard to have much sympathy for Mr Soros (junior) in relation to this, he has been repeatedly warned, and he has rejected (with contempt) all the warnings that what he supports will turn, at some point, turn on him.
Still it is good to have things out in the open – no more denials or screams of “Racist!” when one points out that someone is a socialist and believes in class conflict (plundering of “the rich” and class based legislation).
Is it a matter of “kill or be killed”? I would say NO – as the option of leaving New York City remains (no one is prevented from leaving) and some people are already leaving – many more will leave, and then yet more, and then even more – and so on.
But there is also a danger – namely that it will not just be taxpayers who leave. As with African countries who have collapsed due to socialism and “class” “social justice” policies, other people may leave New York City – for example the massive number of immigrants who have arrived for government benefits and public services (the opposite sort of immigrant than the ones that used to arrive – when government benefits and public services did not exist).
They may not formally think to themselves “there is no more plunder in New York – I must go to some other place and vote for plundering there” (“democratic socialism” being plundering-by-vote) – but that, in effect, will be what they are doing.
So mass deportations are the logical answer – not even the most fanatical “open borders” person could, logically, support the immigration of plunderers (of enemies) – of supporters of “Social Justice” (plundering and destruction).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that immigrants who FALSELY swear loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, who are enemies of the United States, have no right to be there – and should be removed.
Obviously this applies to Mayor Elect Mamdani and his parents – his father teaches hatred of the United States, indeed of the West generally, at Columbia University, and came to the United States for the purpose of doing harm to America (none of these people have tried to hide their hatred of the “capitalist” United States with its defining “capitalist” constitution, and their desire to do America harm – indeed their openness is their one virtue) – but it also applies to many of his supporters.
Sadly it may be considered “politically impossible” to remove the Mamdani family itself (although the legal grounds for doing so are clear – indeed judgments on this matter, removing immigrants who falsely sworn loyalty. go all the way back to the 1920s). However, mass deportations of others who have falsely sworn loyalty to the United States (or who are not citizens at all – and are voting illegally) must be undertaken.
New York City will be destroyed by those who serve evil, such as Mayor Elect Mamdani – and it is his conscious, deliberate, aim to do as much harm has possible – but that does NOT mean that other places have to share this fate.
If Africa some (some) of the socialist regimes that came to power did so making moderate noises – for example Mr Mugabe in Rhodesia 1980, or the ANC in South Africa in 1994 – the mask came off later, but the mask was very much on when they came to power – and they came to power by “democratic elections” – not Revolution.
With the case of New York City there is no such mask – people, who can leave, have no excuse not to leave. I repeat – the openness of the Mamdani family, not just the son – also the father, is their one virtue. Their support for evil is open – their intentions clear.
New York City is lost – but other places can be saved.
Yeah, I think everyone grasps that “taxation is theft”; but we don’t live in a world where it’s even vaguely feasible that taxes will become voluntary.
So the “hold you nose” position becomes “which tax is least bad?”
LVT is slightly different to property tax, in as much as it applies only the rental value of the land itself (not any structures or other improvements that you may have put up).
So a piece of land in the city near to all the amenities etc would be taxed more even if it were a vacant lot – thereby encouraging better use of it (rather than holding it out of use and earning money for doing nothing whilst it value appreciates)
If I were to extend my house with a couple of extra rooms, and move me dear ol’ Mum in, the tax I pay would stay the same (currently, it would go through the roof – pun not intended). Obviously enough, this is a more efficient use of the land, and also frees up her old house for sale (more supply, lower pricing, etc etc – good for people wanting to buy property. And better than most currently proposed solutions, for sure)
There’s a couple of obvious “issues”, but with any taxation scheme there are “winners and losers”. In the case of dear old Doris, 90, living in the house she bought when it were all just fields round ‘ere, and now it’s a thriving hub – yeah. That’s a problem. A couple of the better thought out LVT schemes have carve-outs for primary-residences (be they total exemption or drastic reduction), so one would only be taxed on second homes (note: you currently have to pay property tax on second homes anyway, so the difference is only in the degree).
More importantly, it would mostly apply to income-generating properties – businesses, factories, rentals etc – so yes, that would need to be factored in. Which is only right and proper.
Point is, it incentives more efficient land-use. A lot of our housing problems today come from vacant properties being held out of use, because it’s more profitable to let them sit empty than it is to rent/sell, and allow the value to appreciate. Or, vacant land that isn’t being built on (reasons many and varied, obviously).
Is it a fee to own property? Yes. But we *already* pay a fee to own property in the current forms of property tax (or council tax in the UK). Nothing’s changing there. And if it does only get applied to non-primary residences, then it’s essentially a voluntary tax. Don’t want to pay it? Sell it to someone who is willing and able to do so (because they believe they can use it more efficiently and profitably than you)
———–
It’s one of few taxes that aren’t regressive, or able to easily pass costs on to the purchaser/customer (which is the point against corporation tax, capital gains, etc).
My issue with sales tax is that the poor are taxed at a much higher percentage of their income than the rich, for the very simple reason that they *have* to spend more of their income on necessities. Sure, you can exempt necessities, but then you start getting into the very murky waters of “who decides what is a necessity?” And we all know the answer to that, and it will be a horror-show – it already is, in fact.
I assume that bobby is replying to my previous comment here:
Not if you have good friends who would help you get back your property, or avenge your murder.
And not if you live in a town with a decent police force.
In theory, yes; in practice, things are not so easy for governments. Much depends on the constitutional system, of course.
Paul, a day or so back, you accused of me of being “evil” for the audacity of looking coldly and coolly upon the New York mayoral election and concluding that given the alternatives, I do not think that this is wholly a bad thing (I actually think it’s – on balance -probably a good thing)
I have no wish to kill you. I’m aware that you are massively unwell, and I wish you to have access to care that helps you. When I say “universal” – I *fucking mean it*.
(I’m aware that you would like to kill me, and people like me, and if given the chance you would do so *shrugs*)
By all means – crack on, son.
Or, to put it another way
I *know* that you haven’t actually read Fetter’s arguments. If you had, you’d be talking about something *very specific* which you haven’t done. I’m not gonna tell you what it is, but the fact that you haven’t shows that you’ve not actually read it.
What you’ve done, is you’ve read that “Fetter disputed this”, and you’ve gone “yep, that’ll do”, and confidentially and incorrectly quoted it.
Which, like, ooooooofff. Embarrassing at best.
(should I be fair? Should I invoke scissors? Sure, I’ll be nice)
There are two sorts of nation – an ethno state, for example some African countries hold that people of a certain race and ethnic group can truly be part of the nation, or a nation based on an idea.
The United States, even when many black people were slaves, was never an ethno-nation – to be an American meant to be a person who believed in the principles of the Constitution – the private property, limited government free enterprise principles that are, since Karl Marx and his followers, called “capitalism” (this word was originally a smear term – although I forget who was the first person to use it).
Someone can not, honestly, swear loyalty to the Constitution of the United States and be a socialist – therefore if such a collectivist immigrant does falsely swear loyalty to the Constitution, he-or-she needs to be deported.
In the 19th century the socialist (National Socialist – saluting hands and all) Bellamy cousins, Francis and Edward, tried to substitute an oath to “the flag” NOT to the Constitution (that is because Francis and Edward hated the private property limited government based “capitalist” Constitution).
There is indeed an “Oath of Allegiance to the flag” in American schools – but it is legally meaningless, it is an empty ritual (sorry – but legally it is). Francis and Edward Bellamy did not change the Constitution of the United States – their Socialism (summed up in Edward Bellamy’s 1887 book “Looking Backward”) is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States.
The Oath an immigrant becoming an American citizen takes is NOT to “the flag” it is the Constitution that people such Mr Mamdani (father and son) hate and despise – as does his supporters.
America is not an ethno state like some African countries – it is country based on private property, limited government, free enterprise “capitalism” – if you do not approve of that, do-not-go-there.
People have a right to defend themselves from enemies (enemies) entering their nation.
Maybe we should also consider a third sort of nation: a nation defined by natural boundaries, such as the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the English Channel.
(Apologies for my Euro.centric perspective.)