3 ms·

We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these procee

by nickff 11y ago

We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion and malinvestment.

_delirium 11y ago
I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example. And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)

by nickff 11y ago

_delirium 11y ago

I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example. And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)