5 ms·

The best explanations I've heard effectively make the assertion that a country's land is collectively owned by its citizens. Its citizens can then charge rent (

The best explanations I've heard effectively make the assertion that a country's land is collectively owned by its citizens. Its citizens can then charge rent (via taxation) to individuals or corporations using the land. UBI is the distribution of that rent.

thescriptkiddie 9y ago
Politicians are loath to acknowledge this, but the fundamental purpose of taxation isn't just to fund the public good, it is to discourage rent-seeking. Economic rents (not to be confused with the rent you might pay for an apartment) are dead weight, so any tax that can target them without disrupting actual productive work is effectively free money. One of the best ways of doing this is, as you proposed, to tax the unimproved value of the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
moxious 9y ago
In what way is the land collectively owned? The business would show a deed and prove they already own the land. Also, if I already own a house privately, I would pay the commons rent on what I already own? This seems to pervert the notion of ownership.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  In the US (and most countries), land "ownership" is already a perverted notion. You often must pay personal property tax on the land you "own", the government, through eminent domain, can take the land you "own", etc.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  As the land is not something that you created your 'ownership' of it is simply a grant from the commons. Unless I am misinformed this is explicitly the case in the US as far as many tracts of land in the mid-west are concerned, the federal government granted parcels of land to those who would settle there. The point is that because it is a grant from the commons there is no natural law that says that that grant cannot be handled in a different way than it is now. If society as a whole decides that this grant is no longer to be regarded as absolute then there is no barrier to taxing the occupier of the land.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

thescriptkiddie 9y ago

Politicians are loath to acknowledge this, but the fundamental purpose of taxation isn't just to fund the public good, it is to discourage rent-seeking. Economic rents (not to be confused with the rent you might pay for an apartment) are dead weight, so any tax that can target them without disrupting actual productive work is effectively free money. One of the best ways of doing this is, as you proposed, to tax the unimproved value of the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

moxious 9y ago

In what way is the land collectively owned? The business would show a deed and prove they already own the land. Also, if I already own a house privately, I would pay the commons rent on what I already own? This seems to pervert the notion of ownership.

the_gastropod 9y ago
In the US (and most countries), land "ownership" is already a perverted notion. You often must pay personal property tax on the land you "own", the government, through eminent domain, can take the land you "own", etc.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
As the land is not something that you created your 'ownership' of it is simply a grant from the commons. Unless I am misinformed this is explicitly the case in the US as far as many tracts of land in the mid-west are concerned, the federal government granted parcels of land to those who would settle there. The point is that because it is a grant from the commons there is no natural law that says that that grant cannot be handled in a different way than it is now. If society as a whole decides that this grant is no longer to be regarded as absolute then there is no barrier to taxing the occupier of the land.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]