3 ms·

I’m all for eminent domain when it comes to providing infrastructure, but I feel icky about it being used just to hopefully profit. Reminds me too much of Kelo

by aqme28 2y ago

I’m all for eminent domain when it comes to providing infrastructure, but I feel icky about it being used just to hopefully profit. Reminds me too much of Kelo v. New London

llamaimperative 2y ago
“Profit” is a misnomer. It’s to allow the taxpayers to recoup the costs of the project they funded. Who profits normally from such public investment is typically an extremely small set of landowners who happen (coincidentally or not) to be near those public investments. Which of those actually seems more fair?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  How about the taxpayers recoup the cost through the value they receive from the project? It seems like this is just a way for the average taxpayer avoid paying for the asset they want. Major social projects should be selected based on the value they provide to the public at large, and paid for by the public at large. There are other types of public-private collaboration available if the goal is to benefit a niche group.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    How is spending millions, if not billions, avoiding paying for the asset we want? Investments cost capital. The point of investing is to make things better that they are today. It's essentially impossible to exactly 'break even' on your returns, given uncertainty in the variables we know and the unknown unknowns in the variables we don't. Society is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits here. I don't see the problem. 'california' is not a niche group of Californians -- it is the group.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think you misunderstand my point. Im saying the tax payers should pay for the project, because everyone benefits. They shouldnt try to foist the cost on some niche group, as suggested above. We already have a tax system which captures a portion of benefits from the social endeavor to each person. Arguments that specific landowners stand to benefit more, and therefore should pay for the train instead of taxpayers is faulty. It is faulty because it ignores the benefits of a train to the general population, and it ignores that those with disproportionate benefit will pay more taxes.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        That isn’t foisting the cost…? It’s capturing the upside/preventing its capture by random disinterested parties. No one is suggesting specific landowners pay for the train…?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >No, the upside from infrastructure projects is largely not captured by the public nor the state. Are you claiming that infrastructures are a loss to the public and state? If there isnt enough public upside to justify the project, then the public should not take it on. IF there is enough upside, then spillover is acceptable and much of it will be captured in taxes anyways. You didnt say foisting the cost, but you did suggest seizing private property to reduce the taxpayer expense and prevent owners from benefiting. Im quite similar with Georgism, and think it is economically outdated in a service economy. Beyond that, it is only appealing if you oppose property ownership and think the purpose of the state is to optimize allocation of resources for tax farming.
        danielhep 2y ago
        Is there any reading you could link to to explain why you think Georgism is outdated in a modern context?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Unfortunately not, as it is primarily my conclusion based reading about it and engaging with proponents. Maybe I should write a blog post or something. In short, I think it is outdated because it is a material consumption and utilization tax applied relatively regressively. Henry George lived in the 1800s when economic value creation primarily was primarily through agricultural and industrial utilization of natural resources (farming, mining, manufacturing). Since then, the value creation in industrialized countries have largely shifted to service and knowledge economies (finance, medicine, entertainment, technology, arbitrage, and IP). Service and knowledge economies are much more detached from natural resources consumption. As and example, a banker might make a million dollar trade consuming little more than the electricity and a PC, whereas a farmer needs hundreds of acres, Water, tractors, fuel, and fertilizer. One might think that the tax burden would get passed along from the primary users of natural recourses to the end consumers, and this is may be true to a degree. However, differences in consumption is much more flat between individuals than income or wealth. Your Warren Buffets of the world might have an income 100,000 X higher than the average person, but they dont consume 100,000X more material goods like food, water, housing, ect.

by aqme28 2y ago

I’m all for eminent domain when it comes to providing infrastructure, but I feel icky about it being used just to hopefully profit. Reminds me too much of Kelo v. New London

llamaimperative 2y ago

“Profit” is a misnomer. It’s to allow the taxpayers to recoup the costs of the project they funded. Who profits normally from such public investment is typically an extremely small set of landowners who happen (coincidentally or not) to be near those public investments. Which of those actually seems more fair?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
How about the taxpayers recoup the cost through the value they receive from the project? It seems like this is just a way for the average taxpayer avoid paying for the asset they want. Major social projects should be selected based on the value they provide to the public at large, and paid for by the public at large. There are other types of public-private collaboration available if the goal is to benefit a niche group.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  How is spending millions, if not billions, avoiding paying for the asset we want? Investments cost capital. The point of investing is to make things better that they are today. It's essentially impossible to exactly 'break even' on your returns, given uncertainty in the variables we know and the unknown unknowns in the variables we don't. Society is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits here. I don't see the problem. 'california' is not a niche group of Californians -- it is the group.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think you misunderstand my point. Im saying the tax payers should pay for the project, because everyone benefits. They shouldnt try to foist the cost on some niche group, as suggested above. We already have a tax system which captures a portion of benefits from the social endeavor to each person. Arguments that specific landowners stand to benefit more, and therefore should pay for the train instead of taxpayers is faulty. It is faulty because it ignores the benefits of a train to the general population, and it ignores that those with disproportionate benefit will pay more taxes.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      That isn’t foisting the cost…? It’s capturing the upside/preventing its capture by random disinterested parties. No one is suggesting specific landowners pay for the train…?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >No, the upside from infrastructure projects is largely not captured by the public nor the state. Are you claiming that infrastructures are a loss to the public and state? If there isnt enough public upside to justify the project, then the public should not take it on. IF there is enough upside, then spillover is acceptable and much of it will be captured in taxes anyways. You didnt say foisting the cost, but you did suggest seizing private property to reduce the taxpayer expense and prevent owners from benefiting. Im quite similar with Georgism, and think it is economically outdated in a service economy. Beyond that, it is only appealing if you oppose property ownership and think the purpose of the state is to optimize allocation of resources for tax farming.
        danielhep 2y ago
        Is there any reading you could link to to explain why you think Georgism is outdated in a modern context?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Unfortunately not, as it is primarily my conclusion based reading about it and engaging with proponents. Maybe I should write a blog post or something. In short, I think it is outdated because it is a material consumption and utilization tax applied relatively regressively. Henry George lived in the 1800s when economic value creation primarily was primarily through agricultural and industrial utilization of natural resources (farming, mining, manufacturing). Since then, the value creation in industrialized countries have largely shifted to service and knowledge economies (finance, medicine, entertainment, technology, arbitrage, and IP). Service and knowledge economies are much more detached from natural resources consumption. As and example, a banker might make a million dollar trade consuming little more than the electricity and a PC, whereas a farmer needs hundreds of acres, Water, tractors, fuel, and fertilizer. One might think that the tax burden would get passed along from the primary users of natural recourses to the end consumers, and this is may be true to a degree. However, differences in consumption is much more flat between individuals than income or wealth. Your Warren Buffets of the world might have an income 100,000 X higher than the average person, but they dont consume 100,000X more material goods like food, water, housing, ect.