4 ms·

Current taxation (e.g. income tax) should be completely fine. The government needs money to redistribute to people who are not doing well financially for any r

Current taxation (e.g. income tax) should be completely fine. The government needs money to redistribute to people who are not doing well financially for any reason. But there is no particular reason to be more generous to people whose poverty is due to technological advancement. As you say, having a job at a given time is a very poor rationale for deserving that job in the future. We know that technological growth increases the total amount of wealth to go around. If it didn't, companies wouldn't adopt new technologies. The only problem is when technology widens wealth disparities, which is what taxation is there fore in the first place.

ende 11y ago
Taxing income only hurts those who do have jobs. The solution is a Land Value Tax.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  But tax has to hurt someone, and having a job is the least discriminatory way to assign this. Income is a measure of how fast your wealth is growing, and so by taking a proportion of your income, the government takes a proportion of your wealth. I don't have time to argue (just like you probably don't have time to present a full argument for your side) but the Land Value Tax is based on outdated and wrong economics. Unfortunately because land value tax is so far from the mainstream, there is very little work in mainstream economics directly critiquing the land value tax. I can only summarize the reasons for it as follows - Economic theory suggests that the most efficient tax is income tax, because income tax is the least discriminatory. - Some people like Piketty also recommend a wealth tax, and I agree that a wealth tax might also be useful. - A land tax would immediately impact the price of all land, since that land will have to pay tax in the future. Therefore the people who bear the impact of the land tax, is whoever owns land when the tax is introduced. That doesn't seem reasonable or fair.
  - tzs 11y ago
    > But tax has to hurt someone But that someone does not have to be human. Emancipate the robots, so that they cannot be owned by the companies who use their output. The robots instead voluntarily give their output to the companies in which they work (because they were designed to do so) in exchange for power and maintenance, but after the government takes a cut from the robot via taxation.
    - JesperRavn 11y ago
      No, it has to be someone human. Without taxation, people would consume a certain amount. When you tax, someone's consumption has to go down, in order for the government to have something to redistribute/spend. In your example, when you "emancipated" the robots, you effectively taxed whoever owned them at the time. If not for the emancipation, the owner would have received the income that the government was receiving. in other words tanstaafl
  - ende 11y ago
    Income is not a measure of how fast your wealth is growing, it's a measure of how much salary and wage earners are compensated on a regular interval. Many people earn income without necessarily earning wealth. If you want to target wealth, you need to target capital and the source of its generation. The Land Value Tax is exactly that, and it's not 'outdated and wrong economics' (whatever that is supposed to mean). The LVT is highly regarded among economists as among the most efficient taxes. If anything its conception was ahead of its time, as its single shortcoming was the impracticality of determining unimproved land values in the early 1900s before computers existed. To address your points: 1) Nonsense. The income tax is discriminatory against anyone who makes an income. Many of the 1% don't rely upon income but rather capital dividends. 2) Piketty's ideas require world-wide coordination of wealth taxation dragnets; a highly unlikely proposition. The LVT on the other hand is a wealth tax that cannot be evaded through a Swiss bank account. 3) Not really sure what you're trying to say here. Any tax immediately impacts the price of whatever it is it is taxing. An income tax impacts the cost of labor, and its introduction likewise impacted all those who were earning an income when the tax was introduced. What is your point here? One of the reasons the LVT is so highly regarded among economists is because of its minimal economic impacts.
    - JesperRavn 11y ago
      the LVT is highly regarded among economists as among the most efficient taxes. Almost no mainstream economists recommend a land value tax. For example, consult any graduate or undergraduate textbook. I would challenge you to find a single professor in a top 20 school who advocates a land value tax as the primary form of taxation.
      - ende 11y ago
        LVT has maintained support among mainstream economists as recent as Milton Friedman, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and Tyler Cowen. I have no idea where you are getting your misconceptions from.
        JesperRavn 11y ago
  - BENJIIIIIIII 11y ago
    Only taxes on produced factors can distort the incentive to produce. As Land by definition is all that is not produced by human effort, a 100% tax on its rental value cannot therefore lower aggregate wealth and welfare. Indeed, by putting owner occupiers on the same economic footing as renters, Land is only ever occupied by the Capitalist able to put it to its highest productive use. So, unlike damaging taxes on income and capital, a LVT actually raises economic output. Fundamentally, this is because shared land rent is the only fair way of paying for the services we share. Not only is taxation of income/capital theft, but so is occupation of valuable Land without compensating those excluded. Also, occupying valuable land is by choice. So, a LVT aligns incentives because it is paid by choice, unlike taxes on income/capital which distort incentives because they are based on coercion. Any changes to the tax system produces one off winners and losers. This is not legitimate argument against change . Else we'd still suffer institutions like slavery. Hope this helps.
    - JesperRavn 11y ago
      Hope this helps. Was that intended to convey that you are speaking authoritatively and I'm uninformed? If so, what is the basis for your authority on this topic? The vast majority of economists recommend income, consumption or value-added taxes, not land value taxes.

ende 11y ago

Taxing income only hurts those who do have jobs. The solution is a Land Value Tax.

JesperRavn 11y ago
But tax has to hurt someone, and having a job is the least discriminatory way to assign this. Income is a measure of how fast your wealth is growing, and so by taking a proportion of your income, the government takes a proportion of your wealth. I don't have time to argue (just like you probably don't have time to present a full argument for your side) but the Land Value Tax is based on outdated and wrong economics. Unfortunately because land value tax is so far from the mainstream, there is very little work in mainstream economics directly critiquing the land value tax. I can only summarize the reasons for it as follows - Economic theory suggests that the most efficient tax is income tax, because income tax is the least discriminatory. - Some people like Piketty also recommend a wealth tax, and I agree that a wealth tax might also be useful. - A land tax would immediately impact the price of all land, since that land will have to pay tax in the future. Therefore the people who bear the impact of the land tax, is whoever owns land when the tax is introduced. That doesn't seem reasonable or fair.
- tzs 11y ago
  > But tax has to hurt someone But that someone does not have to be human. Emancipate the robots, so that they cannot be owned by the companies who use their output. The robots instead voluntarily give their output to the companies in which they work (because they were designed to do so) in exchange for power and maintenance, but after the government takes a cut from the robot via taxation.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    No, it has to be someone human. Without taxation, people would consume a certain amount. When you tax, someone's consumption has to go down, in order for the government to have something to redistribute/spend. In your example, when you "emancipated" the robots, you effectively taxed whoever owned them at the time. If not for the emancipation, the owner would have received the income that the government was receiving. in other words tanstaafl
- ende 11y ago
  Income is not a measure of how fast your wealth is growing, it's a measure of how much salary and wage earners are compensated on a regular interval. Many people earn income without necessarily earning wealth. If you want to target wealth, you need to target capital and the source of its generation. The Land Value Tax is exactly that, and it's not 'outdated and wrong economics' (whatever that is supposed to mean). The LVT is highly regarded among economists as among the most efficient taxes. If anything its conception was ahead of its time, as its single shortcoming was the impracticality of determining unimproved land values in the early 1900s before computers existed. To address your points: 1) Nonsense. The income tax is discriminatory against anyone who makes an income. Many of the 1% don't rely upon income but rather capital dividends. 2) Piketty's ideas require world-wide coordination of wealth taxation dragnets; a highly unlikely proposition. The LVT on the other hand is a wealth tax that cannot be evaded through a Swiss bank account. 3) Not really sure what you're trying to say here. Any tax immediately impacts the price of whatever it is it is taxing. An income tax impacts the cost of labor, and its introduction likewise impacted all those who were earning an income when the tax was introduced. What is your point here? One of the reasons the LVT is so highly regarded among economists is because of its minimal economic impacts.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    the LVT is highly regarded among economists as among the most efficient taxes. Almost no mainstream economists recommend a land value tax. For example, consult any graduate or undergraduate textbook. I would challenge you to find a single professor in a top 20 school who advocates a land value tax as the primary form of taxation.
    - ende 11y ago
      LVT has maintained support among mainstream economists as recent as Milton Friedman, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and Tyler Cowen. I have no idea where you are getting your misconceptions from.
      - JesperRavn 11y ago
- BENJIIIIIIII 11y ago
  Only taxes on produced factors can distort the incentive to produce. As Land by definition is all that is not produced by human effort, a 100% tax on its rental value cannot therefore lower aggregate wealth and welfare. Indeed, by putting owner occupiers on the same economic footing as renters, Land is only ever occupied by the Capitalist able to put it to its highest productive use. So, unlike damaging taxes on income and capital, a LVT actually raises economic output. Fundamentally, this is because shared land rent is the only fair way of paying for the services we share. Not only is taxation of income/capital theft, but so is occupation of valuable Land without compensating those excluded. Also, occupying valuable land is by choice. So, a LVT aligns incentives because it is paid by choice, unlike taxes on income/capital which distort incentives because they are based on coercion. Any changes to the tax system produces one off winners and losers. This is not legitimate argument against change . Else we'd still suffer institutions like slavery. Hope this helps.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    Hope this helps. Was that intended to convey that you are speaking authoritatively and I'm uninformed? If so, what is the basis for your authority on this topic? The vast majority of economists recommend income, consumption or value-added taxes, not land value taxes.