4 ms·

Agricultural producers have razor thin margins almost anywhere in the world and face strong international competition. The rent seeking landowner gouging consum

Agricultural producers have razor thin margins almost anywhere in the world and face strong international competition. The rent seeking landowner gouging consumers through food prices is an ideological fantasy. Quite the opposite, there is a strong tendency to overproduction and subsidies. A large land tax in such an ECON101 postcard-perfect market will immediately increase the costs of inputs to the point where production no longer makes economic sense. Either through decreased production or tariff protectionism the food prices will rise, passing the tax to consumers. That's not say taxes are always passed down to consumers, that's a pure straw-man you conjure to hurl insults. But in these two cases, they are, to an overwhelming degree.

haihaibye 8y ago
A land tax would reduce the price of land, and farmers would borrow less in the future to buy it. In effect it would probably be a one off hit to real estate prices. I think the distortions of a land tax are better than others and support it. I own real estate but it's only 5x my wage, the current system sucks - taxing human effort and creativity is about the worst thing you can tax.
- cornholio 8y ago
  Clearly, a tax on arable land would devalue it. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be reflected in food prices - and that is the absolute worst thing you can tax. As for income taxes, they don't really tax creativity and human effort, except if you think of the world as a perfect meritocratic utopia where everyone has infinite positive liberties. But in that case, you wouldn't really need to tax anybody. The revenue of an individual is generally strongly dependent on the social infrastructure they use to generate it. The same person, transplanted into another area of the world with less functional social institutions will generate orders of magnitude less money. For example, an American or British medic moving to the peaceful and English speaking country of Ghana: same creativity and effort, 5-10x less revenue, purchasing parity adjusted. It's only natural then for him to pay for his access to the rich society, thus enabling the public investments that allow such a rich society to exist in the fist place.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    The people are the rich society. The people are the social infrastructure, created by them and their ancestors. Not seeing much positive investment by government these days for that 50% overhead.
    - cornholio 8y ago
      How fast do you reckon the basic infrastructure would crumble without any public investment ? What would the crime rate be without any social transfers, food stamps, public education, jobs created in and by the government? How fast would society descend to gang war and warlords, absent any public defense and policing efforts? The ideea that Americans or the British possess a hereditary, almost magical capacity to self organize in the absence of fiscal revenue, that other lesser civilised people lack, is deliciously naive. That's not to say the governments of rich countries is the pinnacle of efficiency or forethought and shouldn't be kept strictly in check. But that much worse is possible, and that the failure of government has such drastic consequences to make 50% of your revenue the least of your concerns.

haihaibye 8y ago

A land tax would reduce the price of land, and farmers would borrow less in the future to buy it. In effect it would probably be a one off hit to real estate prices. I think the distortions of a land tax are better than others and support it. I own real estate but it's only 5x my wage, the current system sucks - taxing human effort and creativity is about the worst thing you can tax.

cornholio 8y ago
Clearly, a tax on arable land would devalue it. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be reflected in food prices - and that is the absolute worst thing you can tax. As for income taxes, they don't really tax creativity and human effort, except if you think of the world as a perfect meritocratic utopia where everyone has infinite positive liberties. But in that case, you wouldn't really need to tax anybody. The revenue of an individual is generally strongly dependent on the social infrastructure they use to generate it. The same person, transplanted into another area of the world with less functional social institutions will generate orders of magnitude less money. For example, an American or British medic moving to the peaceful and English speaking country of Ghana: same creativity and effort, 5-10x less revenue, purchasing parity adjusted. It's only natural then for him to pay for his access to the rich society, thus enabling the public investments that allow such a rich society to exist in the fist place.
- njarboe 8y ago
  The people are the rich society. The people are the social infrastructure, created by them and their ancestors. Not seeing much positive investment by government these days for that 50% overhead.
  - cornholio 8y ago
    How fast do you reckon the basic infrastructure would crumble without any public investment ? What would the crime rate be without any social transfers, food stamps, public education, jobs created in and by the government? How fast would society descend to gang war and warlords, absent any public defense and policing efforts? The ideea that Americans or the British possess a hereditary, almost magical capacity to self organize in the absence of fiscal revenue, that other lesser civilised people lack, is deliciously naive. That's not to say the governments of rich countries is the pinnacle of efficiency or forethought and shouldn't be kept strictly in check. But that much worse is possible, and that the failure of government has such drastic consequences to make 50% of your revenue the least of your concerns.