ONE TAX ON LAND VALUE
olaminv...@gmail.com
SINGLE TAX ON LAND VALUE AS A WAY OF FINANCING GOVERNMENTS AND
ECONOMIES INSTEAD OF THE CLASSIC USE OF THE TAX ON INCOME TO FINANCE
GOVERNMENT BUDGETS.
I AM REFERRING TO THE GENERAL THEORIES OF THE WELL KNOWN AMERICAN
ECONOMIST , HENRY GEORGE.
WHY IS THERE OPPOSITON OF THE USE OF THIS THEORY ? IT SEEMS THERE IS
ONLY GAIN IN THE PARTIAL OR FULL USE OF TAXING LAND VALUES AS OPPOSED
TO TAXING INCOME.
PLEASE PUT THIS UP TO GENERAL DISCUSSION.
THANKS
Frank Palmer
George hasn't much acceptance in economic theory.
One problem is that he points out that general economic progress
results in benefits to land owners. Very true, but general economic
progress results in many other benefits as well. that's easy to deny
from one year to the next, but I've never met anyone with the guts to
claim that his life wasn't better than the life of the average man in
the Middle Ages. For that matter, aside from personal service and
prestige, you and I live better than Louis X ever did.
So why should social costs be paid exclusively from the property
owners?
anonymous
> On Mar 16, 12:49 am, "olaminvestme...@yahoo.com"
> <olaminvestme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I AM INTERESTED IN FURTHUR INFORMATION AND RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE
>> SINGLE TAX ON LAND VALUE AS A WAY OF FINANCING GOVERNMENTS AND
>> ECONOMIES INSTEAD OF THE CLASSIC USE OF THE TAX ON INCOME TO FINANCE
>> GOVERNMENT BUDGETS.
>> I AM REFERRING TO THE GENERAL THEORIES OF THE WELL KNOWN AMERICAN
>> ECONOMIST , HENRY GEORGE.
>> WHY IS THERE OPPOSITON OF THE USE OF THIS THEORY ? IT SEEMS THERE IS
>> ONLY GAIN IN THE PARTIAL OR FULL USE OF TAXING LAND VALUES AS OPPOSED
>> TO TAXING INCOME.
>> PLEASE PUT THIS UP TO GENERAL DISCUSSION.
>> THANKS
>
> George hasn't much acceptance in economic theory.
>
> One problem is that he points out that general economic progress
> results in benefits to land owners. Very true, but general economic
So a LVT causes land owners to progressively accumulate capital from the
non-land owners (faster than with an Income Tax)? This is
counterintuitive to me. If you're taxing the land, I'd expect those
using least land to benefit from growth.
> progress results in many other benefits as well. that's easy to deny
> from one year to the next, but I've never met anyone with the guts to
> claim that his life wasn't better than the life of the average man in
> the Middle Ages. For that matter, aside from personal service and
> prestige, you and I live better than Louis X ever did.
>
> So why should social costs be paid exclusively from the property
> owners?
What is the alternative? If you try to calculate "income" you find it
is rather expensive and incredibly intrusive. It blocks economic
transactions in a manner that LVT doesn't(?). Isn't a simple argument
based on total deadweight costs sufficient?
Anyway don't the people using the land end up paying the tax, in effect?
If I rent my land to you, I pass on most/all of my tax, so you, the user
pay.
--
Anon
professorchaos
> On Mar 16, 12:49 am, "olaminvestme...@yahoo.com"
> George hasn't much acceptance in economic theory.
I would not say that at all. One of the most popular microeconomic
textbooks on the market has a discussion of George placed in the chapter
on the effects of taxation.
Nor would I say it is not used. Most states have a land tax as well as
an income or sales tax. On the federal level, the government is
prohibited from levying both income and sales taxes. Land taxes are not
exactly sales taxes but questionable because they based on market value
of the land.
That being said the practice of land taxes in the US is not really
Georgian in that most tax the improved value of the land. I think this
has more to do with tax laws being written so that accountants can
understand them. The accounting profession likes simple formulas and not
having to do work economist would do like estimate the value of
unimproved land. In the accounting world improvements like filling
swamps are included in the base value of the land.
Ultimately, given the level of revenues that governments want, the land
tax is not enough to generate that level of revenue. I am staying away
from any normative statement about the level of revenue wanted. The land
tax is probably the next to the least bad tax that can be levied.
However, it is not efficient as claimed. It is only if improvements
around the land do not raise the value of the land. eg. dry land in the
middle of swamp after the swamp is drained will be much more valuable.
The efficiency argument is also based on the silly notion that the
supply of land is perfectly inelastic because there is a fixed amount.
This is silly because it would imply all land has the same value and
owners would sell the same amount if price were 0 as if they would if it
were $1 million dollars. Because of different qualities of land some
land will not be sold under a certain price. That being said the excess
burden is likely less than any tax other than a lump sum tax.
JDK
Taxes on Construction
Authors: Plassmann F.1; Tideman T.N.2
Source: Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 47, Number 2, March 2000 ,
pp. 216-247(32)
Publisher: Academic Press
Abstract:
The paper examines the effect of taxing structures at a lower rate
than land on the level of construction in 15 Pennsylvania
municipalities between 1972 and 1994. These municipalities are
compared with 204 similar Pennsylvania municipalities that tax land
and structures at the same rate. To reduce the standard errors of
estimate below those of a quasi-maximum likelihood estimation, the
model parameters are estimated with a Markov chain Monte Carlo method,
the Gibbs sampler. In contrast to earlier tax analyses, the estimates
indicate that cities with two-rate taxes enjoy significantly higher
levels of construction than they would with one-rate taxes. Copyright
2000 Academic Press.
Keywords: Gibbs sampler; land value taxation; count data
Language: English
Document Type: Research article
Affiliations: 1: Department of Economics, State University of New York
at Binghamton, Binghamton, New York, 13902 2: Department of Economics,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, 24061