5 ms·
I think any funding of the UBI cannot be distorted by the UBI itself, at any level of the UBI. Imagine the UBI was raised to a level high enough that essential
by bufordsharkley 11y ago
I think any funding of the UBI cannot be distorted by the UBI itself, at any level of the UBI.
Imagine the UBI was raised to a level high enough that essentially no one wanted to work anymore; how could this possibly be funded, insofar as there IS no income to be taxed?
The LVT avoids this particular problem, in that it's driven fully by the value of land within a city. No matter how much or little people work, this land will continue to have value.
- ghaff 11y agoLand has no value absent the demand for it by people who have money.
- bufordsharkley 11y agoThis statement seems to be fundamentally incorrect or untrue. Land is valuable for its many uses: * To grow on * To live on * To collaborate on * To build on * To travel on etc and etc and etc. What do you possibly mean that it "has no value"?
- ghaff 11y agoThis is in the context of a discussion of a tax on land value which is presumably a function of the monetary value placed on that land--i.e. how much someone is willing to pay for it. But, sure, pay a land value tax of 10 percent of the sheep grazing on it or whatever.
- bufordsharkley 11y agoLand has usages that create demand, which creates a market value for it. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
- dragonwriter 11y agoThose are reasons that people become willing to give up something else for it, and, as such, reasons why it has value. The value of a thing is what someone is willing to give up in exchange for it, not the reason they are willing to do so. That's just what value is.
- bufordsharkley 11y agoAgreed; I never said anything otherwise: "Land is valuable for its many uses"
- dredmorbius 11y agoThat's a tautology for any economic good in which "value" is defined as "market value". It explains nothing, nor distinguishes land from any other good.