5 ms·

Tech companies should pay for what they use. They are efficient at not consuming too many resources while producing a lot of value? Probably shouldn't pay much

Tech companies should pay for what they use. They are efficient at not consuming too many resources while producing a lot of value? Probably shouldn't pay much then. But this applies not only to big tech companies but to individuals too - they shouldn't pay much if they don't consume or extract from others. Taxes are only a last-resort mechanism to raise money in absence of proper funding model. If you can price government provided services appropriately then you don't need taxes. Eg. to build infrastructure (roads, networks) you can predict that it'll benefit owners of nearby properties. They will benefit by landfall increase to the value of their property because the land on which it stands becomes more valuable. So you collect the money for the infrastructure project by land "tax" before you begin with construction. ("tax" because it's not a tax but payment for exclusive land ownership rights)

jrs235 6y ago
*exclusive land possession rights
rswail 6y ago
If you follow MMT, taxes are the way governments withdraw money from circulation. > So you collect the money for the infrastructure project by land "tax" before you begin with construction. No, you use land taxes after completion to pay back the debt incurred to create the infrastructure. Adjustments of valuations based on the advantages of the infrastructure result in a greater burden of that repayment on those that receive the greatest benefit, but everyone contributes.
tom_mellior 6y ago
> If you can price government provided services appropriately then you don't need taxes. This is absolute nonsense. It's somewhat true for roads, provided you can efficiently price every single piece of road (which you can't). But it's horribly wrong for things like the police or fire fighting.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I'd like to see your "proper funding model" for the military. Or you'd have to say that the military is part of your "last resort". But then you need to raise enough money to pay for all your last resorts. If LTV is your method, the numbers may not work (as others have said here). Or, instead of raising all that money, you could say that we don't need that big of a military. That's not an insane position. But using desire for an LVT as the basis for deciding on the size of your military seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.
- snidane 6y ago
  Military is actually a great example for LVT. If you mean defence part of it. Invading other countries is likely profitable for select groups so who else should pay for it if it gets approved. But let's focus on defence. It's not that much individual people, who need protection, because they can flee to another country in case of war. What actually needs protection is property which you cannot take with you. And voila that happens to be real estate (locational value). So who should be footing the bill for defence more than owners of land who are desperate for its protection when shit hits the fan? Similar argument can be used to justify LVT for funding of other protective services such as police and firefighters.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    First: "They can flee to another country in case of war" is terrible reasoning. You expect the other country to let them in? All of them? Yeah, that's not the way things actually happen in this flawed world. Most of them will not have the opportunity to flee. So... they should just die? No, the military is there to protect the people, not just the wealth. So your post seems like it's trying to rationalize a not-up-for-debate position, rather than actually reasoning based on reality. Georgism claims to be motivated by compassion for those who are at the mercy of rentiers, but your position shows an immense lack of compassion. "Let them flee to a different country" is the most cold-hearted thing I've heard in a long time. Second: that wasn't my point. My point was, let's see the plan where you actually produce $800 billion (or whatever the military budget is) just from a land tax. Let's see what the actual rates would have to be, and what the effects of those rates would be.
    - scatters 6y ago
      Since when has the purpose of invasion been genocide?
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        The point of invasion has been to kill people until the other government will do what you want. "Kill people" is supposed to be just the military, but there are inevitably civilian casualties. A big part of the point of a military (namely defense) is to keep anybody else's military from getting inside our borders, where it's our people being killed. Both snidane and I assumed that there would be danger to civilians in case of an invasion. The invader doesn't have to intend genocide for that to be true.

jrs235 6y ago

*exclusive land possession rights

rswail 6y ago

If you follow MMT, taxes are the way governments withdraw money from circulation. > So you collect the money for the infrastructure project by land "tax" before you begin with construction. No, you use land taxes after completion to pay back the debt incurred to create the infrastructure. Adjustments of valuations based on the advantages of the infrastructure result in a greater burden of that repayment on those that receive the greatest benefit, but everyone contributes.

tom_mellior 6y ago

> If you can price government provided services appropriately then you don't need taxes. This is absolute nonsense. It's somewhat true for roads, provided you can efficiently price every single piece of road (which you can't). But it's horribly wrong for things like the police or fire fighting.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I'd like to see your "proper funding model" for the military. Or you'd have to say that the military is part of your "last resort". But then you need to raise enough money to pay for all your last resorts. If LTV is your method, the numbers may not work (as others have said here). Or, instead of raising all that money, you could say that we don't need that big of a military. That's not an insane position. But using desire for an LVT as the basis for deciding on the size of your military seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

snidane 6y ago
Military is actually a great example for LVT. If you mean defence part of it. Invading other countries is likely profitable for select groups so who else should pay for it if it gets approved. But let's focus on defence. It's not that much individual people, who need protection, because they can flee to another country in case of war. What actually needs protection is property which you cannot take with you. And voila that happens to be real estate (locational value). So who should be footing the bill for defence more than owners of land who are desperate for its protection when shit hits the fan? Similar argument can be used to justify LVT for funding of other protective services such as police and firefighters.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  First: "They can flee to another country in case of war" is terrible reasoning. You expect the other country to let them in? All of them? Yeah, that's not the way things actually happen in this flawed world. Most of them will not have the opportunity to flee. So... they should just die? No, the military is there to protect the people, not just the wealth. So your post seems like it's trying to rationalize a not-up-for-debate position, rather than actually reasoning based on reality. Georgism claims to be motivated by compassion for those who are at the mercy of rentiers, but your position shows an immense lack of compassion. "Let them flee to a different country" is the most cold-hearted thing I've heard in a long time. Second: that wasn't my point. My point was, let's see the plan where you actually produce $800 billion (or whatever the military budget is) just from a land tax. Let's see what the actual rates would have to be, and what the effects of those rates would be.
  - scatters 6y ago
    Since when has the purpose of invasion been genocide?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      The point of invasion has been to kill people until the other government will do what you want. "Kill people" is supposed to be just the military, but there are inevitably civilian casualties. A big part of the point of a military (namely defense) is to keep anybody else's military from getting inside our borders, where it's our people being killed. Both snidane and I assumed that there would be danger to civilians in case of an invasion. The invader doesn't have to intend genocide for that to be true.