3 ms·

Land value tax is, in a sense, punishing people for not being productive. So there's that.

throwaway894345 4y ago
It's punishing people for being not productive in a very specific, narrow sense--productivity per unit land. Moreover (for clarity's sake), the parent said "stop punishing people for being productive" not "start punishing people for being unproductive" which sound similar but are very different statements.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  shrug. rent seeking landowners are the greatest threat to a healthy economy.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I genuinely don’t know anything about economics. Is this widely accepted among economists or is it more of an ideological/political axiom?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Ideology.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent Economic rent isn't the same as just paying landlords rent, though it's related. Economic rent is basically you profiting from owning stuff and doing nothing. It's a pure wealth transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Rent seeking behavior is when you try to acquire more wealth without creating more wealth. This would include behaviors like regulatory capture, or raising housing rents or other necessary goods to whatever the populace is capable of paying because they have either little alternatives or switching costs are prohibitive. Monopolies, IP law (and abuse thereof), and cases like Apple prohibiting other app stores are all examples of rent seeking behavior as well. A nice quote from the first article on Land Value Taxes and why this is directly relevant. > "Henry George, best known for his proposal for a single tax on land, defines rent as "the part of the produce that accrues to the owners of land (or other natural capabilities) by virtue of ownership" and as "the share of wealth given to landowners because they have an exclusive right to the use of those natural capabilities." It is a generally agreed upon problem, going all the way back to adam smith. It's not possible to have a self consistent economic ideology that does otherwise. You get some radical free market capitalists who think otherwise, but if it were up to them we'd all be living in the United States of Standard Oil by now. They're safe to ignore. The solution to this problem is not clear at all and varies dramatically by ideologies.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Standard Oil was losing market share steadily during the years of the anti-trust action against them. The evidence does not support SO growing to take over the world.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        And yet, when I look at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and BP; three enormously powerful companies that have even rallied wars, my gut instinct is not that these 3 companies should instead be merged into one super power
- vore 4y ago
  I don't think this adds any value to the interpretation of the parent's comment and seems overly pedantic. What does your hair-splitting provide when the central thesis of the parent is arguing that land value tax is a tax on productivity when you've even conceded the rebuttal?
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Lol, the parent was being just as pedantic as I was, and it’s fine. If he’s going to explore abstract technicalities, he invites others to do so as well. I’m sure he’s a grown up and can handle it, and he may even welcome it. If it’s not your cup of tea, downvote and move along. In this case the “added value” is the distinction between “not broadly punishing productivity” and narrowly punishing one kind of unproductivity (as it pertains to land use).

It's punishing people for being not productive in a very specific, narrow sense--productivity per unit land. Moreover (for clarity's sake), the parent said "stop punishing people for being productive" not "start punishing people for being unproductive" which sound similar but are very different statements.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
shrug. rent seeking landowners are the greatest threat to a healthy economy.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I genuinely don’t know anything about economics. Is this widely accepted among economists or is it more of an ideological/political axiom?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Ideology.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent Economic rent isn't the same as just paying landlords rent, though it's related. Economic rent is basically you profiting from owning stuff and doing nothing. It's a pure wealth transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Rent seeking behavior is when you try to acquire more wealth without creating more wealth. This would include behaviors like regulatory capture, or raising housing rents or other necessary goods to whatever the populace is capable of paying because they have either little alternatives or switching costs are prohibitive. Monopolies, IP law (and abuse thereof), and cases like Apple prohibiting other app stores are all examples of rent seeking behavior as well. A nice quote from the first article on Land Value Taxes and why this is directly relevant. > "Henry George, best known for his proposal for a single tax on land, defines rent as "the part of the produce that accrues to the owners of land (or other natural capabilities) by virtue of ownership" and as "the share of wealth given to landowners because they have an exclusive right to the use of those natural capabilities." It is a generally agreed upon problem, going all the way back to adam smith. It's not possible to have a self consistent economic ideology that does otherwise. You get some radical free market capitalists who think otherwise, but if it were up to them we'd all be living in the United States of Standard Oil by now. They're safe to ignore. The solution to this problem is not clear at all and varies dramatically by ideologies.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Standard Oil was losing market share steadily during the years of the anti-trust action against them. The evidence does not support SO growing to take over the world.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        And yet, when I look at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and BP; three enormously powerful companies that have even rallied wars, my gut instinct is not that these 3 companies should instead be merged into one super power
vore 4y ago
I don't think this adds any value to the interpretation of the parent's comment and seems overly pedantic. What does your hair-splitting provide when the central thesis of the parent is arguing that land value tax is a tax on productivity when you've even conceded the rebuttal?
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Lol, the parent was being just as pedantic as I was, and it’s fine. If he’s going to explore abstract technicalities, he invites others to do so as well. I’m sure he’s a grown up and can handle it, and he may even welcome it. If it’s not your cup of tea, downvote and move along. In this case the “added value” is the distinction between “not broadly punishing productivity” and narrowly punishing one kind of unproductivity (as it pertains to land use).