4 ms·

hm... so a tech startup making millions in profits (tiny office for 10 people) should pay less taxes than a grocery store that barely breaks even? I am not sur

by theamk 2y ago

hm... so a tech startup making millions in profits (tiny office for 10 people) should pay less taxes than a grocery store that barely breaks even? I am not sure I'd agree.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Exactly the problem with georgism. It was conceived in a time when all wealth arose from land, and doesn't account for a service or knowledge economy. The ultra rich don't get that way from accumulating land, they accumulate intangible contracts and earning rights, 1s and 0s on a server. The only answer I have heard from georgists is that the costs would would be passed from all of the teachers, farmers, and laborers to the ultra rich. If that that were true, we could just replace everything with a sales or value added taxes. I find that georgism appeals to a segment of people who are entirely preoccupied by urban real estate prices, and haven't thought through the implications for the broader economy
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Apparently “land” in the economic sense covers more than just the physical ground. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_(economics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_(economics) > Examples include […] and portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Supply of these resources is fixed. I even saw some folks argue that IP should be considered a form of land, although I’m not sure if this is a real opinion or some very-online-economics silliness. Anyway, maybe worth looking into. — > If that that were true, we could just replace everything with a sales or value added taxes. I don’t see how this really follows. Land value is more like a wealth tax than an income tax, right? In the sense that it taxes something held, rather than inflow/outflow.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >I don’t see how this really follows. Land value is more like a wealth tax than an income tax, right? In the sense that it taxes something held, rather than inflow/outflow. I agree it is on possession, or something held. The proposition follows not from that property, but the idea that taxes would "trickle up". The idea that it doesnt matter if warren buffet no little land, because taxes levied on farmers and renters would pass on the costs. Land is much more evenly distributed than wealth and income. Similarly, consumption is much flatter than income.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      Hmm. I think you might be right. At least, we should not predict that the tax burden will be successfully passed along to Warren Buffet. I mean, it would be a massive change to a very dynamic system so I don’t think we should make any confident predictions. I dunno. The existence of Warren Buffet-s is something that a lot of people object to. But, I think if the very rich exist, but are not hoarding the gains of natural resources too much, it isn’t really a huge problem. If he gets a bunch of money through making good calls as to which businesses will be productive, that’s good for society as a whole. As long as that productivity doesn’t come from extracting rents.
    - klipt 2y ago
      Warren Buffet owns shares in many companies that own land, he would indirectly pay a ton of land tax.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        thats just hand waving. Some companies have land, some dont. most valuable land is owned by homeowners.
klipt 2y ago
Build a bunch of apartments above the grocery store. Then divide the land tax across all floors. Voila, the grocery store lowered its tax. If the startup is able to produce a lot of value without taking much land, shouldn't that by encouraged? The employees will all buy houses with their earnings and pay tax on that land. They'll invest their money in other companies that also pay land tax. They'll buy groceries, supporting the store you mentioned. Etc. The startup's URL is also "land" and should be taxed.

by theamk 2y ago

hm... so a tech startup making millions in profits (tiny office for 10 people) should pay less taxes than a grocery store that barely breaks even? I am not sure I'd agree.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Exactly the problem with georgism. It was conceived in a time when all wealth arose from land, and doesn't account for a service or knowledge economy. The ultra rich don't get that way from accumulating land, they accumulate intangible contracts and earning rights, 1s and 0s on a server. The only answer I have heard from georgists is that the costs would would be passed from all of the teachers, farmers, and laborers to the ultra rich. If that that were true, we could just replace everything with a sales or value added taxes. I find that georgism appeals to a segment of people who are entirely preoccupied by urban real estate prices, and haven't thought through the implications for the broader economy

bee_rider 2y ago
Apparently “land” in the economic sense covers more than just the physical ground. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_(economics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_(economics) > Examples include […] and portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Supply of these resources is fixed. I even saw some folks argue that IP should be considered a form of land, although I’m not sure if this is a real opinion or some very-online-economics silliness. Anyway, maybe worth looking into. — > If that that were true, we could just replace everything with a sales or value added taxes. I don’t see how this really follows. Land value is more like a wealth tax than an income tax, right? In the sense that it taxes something held, rather than inflow/outflow.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >I don’t see how this really follows. Land value is more like a wealth tax than an income tax, right? In the sense that it taxes something held, rather than inflow/outflow. I agree it is on possession, or something held. The proposition follows not from that property, but the idea that taxes would "trickle up". The idea that it doesnt matter if warren buffet no little land, because taxes levied on farmers and renters would pass on the costs. Land is much more evenly distributed than wealth and income. Similarly, consumption is much flatter than income.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Hmm. I think you might be right. At least, we should not predict that the tax burden will be successfully passed along to Warren Buffet. I mean, it would be a massive change to a very dynamic system so I don’t think we should make any confident predictions. I dunno. The existence of Warren Buffet-s is something that a lot of people object to. But, I think if the very rich exist, but are not hoarding the gains of natural resources too much, it isn’t really a huge problem. If he gets a bunch of money through making good calls as to which businesses will be productive, that’s good for society as a whole. As long as that productivity doesn’t come from extracting rents.
  - klipt 2y ago
    Warren Buffet owns shares in many companies that own land, he would indirectly pay a ton of land tax.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      thats just hand waving. Some companies have land, some dont. most valuable land is owned by homeowners.

klipt 2y ago

Build a bunch of apartments above the grocery store. Then divide the land tax across all floors. Voila, the grocery store lowered its tax. If the startup is able to produce a lot of value without taking much land, shouldn't that by encouraged? The employees will all buy houses with their earnings and pay tax on that land. They'll invest their money in other companies that also pay land tax. They'll buy groceries, supporting the store you mentioned. Etc. The startup's URL is also "land" and should be taxed.