| Subject: | [socialcredit] RE: OWNERSHIP: the "single tax" | | Date: | Monday, December 13, 2004 18:28:48 (-0000) | | From: | Wetzel Dave <Davewetzel @.......uk>
|
William et al
Developers should gain their reward for developing attractive buildings
which people want to use. (i.e. a return on their capital employed).
However, what they are not entitled to is the land value that nature or the
community creates. (i.e. economic rent).
Dave
Dave Wetzel
-----Original Message-----
From: william_b_ryan@yahoo.com [mailto:william_b_ryan@yahoo.com]
Sent: 09 December 2004 16:59
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu; socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: OWNERSHIP: the "single tax"
Nature has a zero cost of production in terms of
labor expended and/or capital goods utilized. "Rent"
is the measure of the difference between locations
and between natural resource-laden lands. There are
just not enough "best locations" and "best natural
resource-laden lands" to go around. So, some come to
have more exchange value than others, the difference
having nothing to do with what the individual deed
holders do or do not do.
---------------------------------
-------------------------------
This train of logic contains several suppositions
that are open to challenge. I'll touch on only some
of them.
You equate "rent" to differences in exchange values
and conclude that those differences have nothing to
do with what individual deed holders do or do not do.
This seems to arbitrarily exclude private development
from the equation and ignores the benefit to the
entire community when development occurs. To the
extent the private developer personally benefits from
the development, which is not cost free to the
private developer in any real sense, those benefits
are earned by the developer, are they not? To the
extent the entire community benefits from the
development, which would not have occurred without
the development, the benefits the community receives
are unearned by the community, are they not?
-
This exchange value has to do with the fact that
supply is finite, population keeps increasing and the
demand for locations is infinite.
---------------------------------
-------------------------------
Supply is definitely not "finite," because of
discovery, innovation and development. And demand in
the economic sense is definitely not "infinite"
because it is satiable. Even the manic glutton let
loose in the five star restaurant with an open tab
will reach the point where he will not eat another
bite.
-
My perspective, then, is that the failure of society
to collect this fund for use by all of society (even
for partial distribution to each citizen as a
dividend) "is more akin to theft."
---------------------------------
-------------------------------
But you're talking about land. "Fund" refers to
money, something quite different, right? Where does
the fund exist that can be taxed? Is not the "single
tax" tantamount to abolition of private ownership in
land?
If so, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate with a
preponderance of evidence that centralized "non-
profit" land management by some politburo is
inherently superior to decentralized management for
profit, in terms of the public welfare.
Moreover, it is a fact that private ownership in land
is what we now have. You will have to further
demonstrate that confiscation will not do more harm
than good in the disruption that would inevitably
result. That is the practical reality you do not
address, is it not?
It is the reality that every utopian schemer avoids.
But hell, on to the Winter Palace!
-
--- Ed Dodson <ejdodson@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ed Dodson responding...
> Michael Bindner wrote (11/29/04):
>
> I would argue that taxing someone's non-income
> producing land over the
> cost of services to maintain roads, public safety
> and housing/building
> regulation is more akin to theft.
>
> Ed Dodson here:
> Nature has a zero cost of production in terms of
> labor expended and/or
> capital goods utilized. "Rent" is the measure of the
> difference between
> locations and between natural resource-laden lands.
> There are just not
> enough "best locations" and "best natural
> resource-laden lands" to go
> around. So, some come to have more exchange value
> than others, the
> difference having nothing to do with what the
> individual deedholders do or
> do not do. This exchange value has to do with the
> fact that supply is
> finite, population keeps increasing and the demand
> for locations is
> infinite. My perspective, then, is that the failure
> of society to collect
> this fund for use by all of society (even for
> partial distribution to each
> citizen as a dividend) "is more akin to theft."
>
> ...Public goods require mandatory taxation or the
> good is not adequately
> provided.
>
> Ed Dodson here:
> If one defines taxation as the confiscation of
> private property and earned
> income flows, then the public collection of location
> rent is, in fact, not
> taxation but could very well be sufficient to
> provide for public goods and
> services.
>
> Over and above that I would have progressive
> income taxation of higher
> incomes to pay interest and principal on the
> national debt (held by the
> public, the social insurance system, and on debts
> forgiven from the
> developing world) and on overseas military
> adventures (Iraq comes to mind),
> with these taxes ceasing when the debt is paid and
> such adventures cease.
>
> Ed Dodson here:
> An argument can be made looking at income data
> that a very considerable
> portion of high marginal incomes are unearned, the
> results of "rent-seeking"
> investment behavior. This is way I have argued for
> restructuring of the
> Federal income tax into a graduated flat tax that
> exempts incomes up to the
> national median, then imposes moderate rates of
> taxation on higher marginal
> incomes. A balanced budget requirement combined with
> conversion of U.S.
> government debt into fully amortizing bonds as they
> mature and are refunded
> will ensure we get out from our the financial mess
> we are in now.
>
***********************************************************************************
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as
to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
***********************************************************************************
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
RE: OWNERSHIP: the
Reply to this message