6 ms·

The only thing inevitable will be that eventually Land-Value taxes will not be enough (if implemented) and then what? There is no end or limit to the amount of

The only thing inevitable will be that eventually Land-Value taxes will not be enough (if implemented) and then what? There is no end or limit to the amount of money a Government can squander.

lilgreenland 6y ago
This is a really good example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- syrrim 6y ago
  It's a slippery slope argument. Logicians demand perfect rigour, and label reasoning that fails to attain that a "fallacy". Humans are satisfied with heuristical arguments, which the slippery slope is an example of. Pointing out that it fails to achieve perfect rigour is meaningless; no argument reaches that bar, and demands to pursue it will only result in obfuscation. Instead, try to explain why the heuristic doesn't apply in this case - if you can. The general response to a slippery slope argument is to explain why one step, once achieved, won't lead to any further steps. You will have great difficulty demonstrating that in this case, since government expenditures regularly rise to the level of their budgets (and indeed beyond).
  - comex 6y ago
    Why would a government not raise expenditures to the level of its budget? Perhaps to pay off debt, but that's only useful in limited circumstances. On the other hand, certain parts of the political spectrum are very emphatic about wanting to reduce both budget and expenditures, and sometimes manage to do so.
Ericson2314 6y ago
While I don't agree with your premise that private sector is magically more efficient, let's just accept it. The government can also hand out cash raised from the LVT as a UBI. Problem solved.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  If you think that solves the problem, I don't think you understood the problem...
- chillacy 6y ago
  If the definition of squander is defined such that any government spending on anything OP don’t benefit from counts as squandering, then it’s not so easily solved. A bit tongue in cheek but not an uncommon opinion.
pydry 6y ago
There's no end or limit to the amount of money any person or institution can squander. It's a flow of income (land rent) that can accrue either to everybody and be shared or to individuals. One way or another some party has to be the beneficiary. The question is who deserves this unearned income?
mlinksva 6y ago
Squandering taxes seems like a separate problem. In the case taxes are squandered, and in the case they are not, it makes sense to use the most efficient taxes first. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem shows "that under certain conditions [presumably including limited squandering, though I didn't check], beneficial investments in public goods will increase aggregate land rents by at least as much as the investments cost"
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  That might be true to the extent government spending is actually in public goods, such as infrastructure, transit, parks, schools, what have you. In reality most government fiscal problems are from things like underfunded pensions and debt service.

The only thing inevitable will be that eventually Land-Value taxes will not be enough (if implemented) and then what? There is no end or limit to the amount of money a Government can squander.

lilgreenland 6y ago

This is a really good example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

syrrim 6y ago
It's a slippery slope argument. Logicians demand perfect rigour, and label reasoning that fails to attain that a "fallacy". Humans are satisfied with heuristical arguments, which the slippery slope is an example of. Pointing out that it fails to achieve perfect rigour is meaningless; no argument reaches that bar, and demands to pursue it will only result in obfuscation. Instead, try to explain why the heuristic doesn't apply in this case - if you can. The general response to a slippery slope argument is to explain why one step, once achieved, won't lead to any further steps. You will have great difficulty demonstrating that in this case, since government expenditures regularly rise to the level of their budgets (and indeed beyond).
- comex 6y ago
  Why would a government not raise expenditures to the level of its budget? Perhaps to pay off debt, but that's only useful in limited circumstances. On the other hand, certain parts of the political spectrum are very emphatic about wanting to reduce both budget and expenditures, and sometimes manage to do so.

Ericson2314 6y ago

While I don't agree with your premise that private sector is magically more efficient, let's just accept it. The government can also hand out cash raised from the LVT as a UBI. Problem solved.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
If you think that solves the problem, I don't think you understood the problem...
chillacy 6y ago
If the definition of squander is defined such that any government spending on anything OP don’t benefit from counts as squandering, then it’s not so easily solved. A bit tongue in cheek but not an uncommon opinion.

pydry 6y ago

There's no end or limit to the amount of money any person or institution can squander. It's a flow of income (land rent) that can accrue either to everybody and be shared or to individuals. One way or another some party has to be the beneficiary. The question is who deserves this unearned income?

mlinksva 6y ago

Squandering taxes seems like a separate problem. In the case taxes are squandered, and in the case they are not, it makes sense to use the most efficient taxes first. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem shows "that under certain conditions [presumably including limited squandering, though I didn't check], beneficial investments in public goods will increase aggregate land rents by at least as much as the investments cost"

throwaway201103 6y ago
That might be true to the extent government spending is actually in public goods, such as infrastructure, transit, parks, schools, what have you. In reality most government fiscal problems are from things like underfunded pensions and debt service.