Why do government schools ignore geoism? and Henry George?

I think it would upset the commy elite.

If you taxed whatever someone charged for rent.

So say rent is 500, the landowner must pay 500 tax a month too.

AWESOME

of course no other taxes at ALL

 

What does this even mean? And more importantly why would commies be averse to high taxes?

 

I think the main reason people do not support land value taxation is simply because they do not understand it, the ethics and economics behind it. On the surface, it just sounds like another tax to people.

That being said, I think land value taxation could still be harmful or even dangerous if not implemented properly. There should be a tax deductable so people who only own a limited value of land would not be taxed on it. And the taxation should be decentralized, it becomes dangerous when a big centralized government has such direct economic power over all the private land.

 

So should we also spend time teaching every other irrelevant school of economic thought? Should there be a class dedicated to mercantilism or austrianism?

Eh, seems pretty wasteful when what most people need so far as their undergraduate degree is concerned doesn't even need to bother to dip into the differences between these schools of thought.

 

because of parasite capitalism

 

no just dump keyensian economics that bernanke has phd in
fed had 1000 phd is keyens and didnt stop great depression or 2008
we need smarter people than obama and fed siply must be dissolved
governmetn should never be able to borrow or debt spend
get rid of bonds too
and of course end all pensions
also all contracts can be ripped up as soon as next election
cancel call contracts

I mean look at mornos liek krugman and maddow, they are so miseducated is hilarious
fdr caused the great depression
reagan cuased the ent boom in 90s and yes bill clinton would been outdone by alf, sicne by doing less damage alf would be superior president, all 90s were was 80s low tax tek boom coming to fruition
thank ron reagan
blame democrat congress for the debt
also obama spent 8 iraq wars so far and crushed business and upped unemplyment
how much common sesne does it take to see just do opposite, cut gover restrictions, regualtions, pensions, welfare, and every other thing that sucks blood liek parasite outa capitalist free produce and trade activity
end unions getting in the way of private trains
use atomic power

yes get rid of keyens and teach von mises since ayn rand and austrain school economics IS econoics, rest si simply keyens saying oposite so governmetn morons can tax crap outa us, and destroy production and hurt poor by making no jobs and huge megainflation from giving thier mornon cronies all the money, people who could not run a business such that people would willingly buy thier product at great low price

what us capitalists want ?? to be free from you oerprices non producers, get everyoine in the game and prices fall and everyone richer from it
remember al most al infaltino is from governmetn taking money from producers and giving unearned pensions and other wefaare
ask public school teachers: if your service is so valueble why not sell it to free public? why need tax shackles to make them use your crapp failed system
end pubic school
end all money to coleges and universiites
let private think tanks produce

 

That doesn't explain why communists wouldn't want high taxes.

 

LOL!

Yup, total mornos.

 

communists yes want high taxes

liberals like me do not

henry george found the cause: rent, and said simply tax those who rent places out

the lower taxes are the better

taxing rent also does not hurt production, like income and payroll taxes do

 

So if communists want high taxes, then why wouldn't communists want high taxes?

George supported (to my knowledge) taxing unimproved land, not all rent. If you can't charge rent on improved land then there is no incentive to improve land. What is and is not "improved land" is also rather subjective, particularly because relatively little rent is gained on purely unimproved land. Taxing land introduces chaos into the system just like any other taxes do, since it distorts prices on the market, decreasing them and making investment in land less and less advantageous, as well as making them increasingly less attractive to businesses.

Furthermore your very statement above is incoherent. You talk about "the cause", the cause of what? And why is tax money spent by the government through this means any less harmful than if it is spent after being obtained in any other way?

 

if you have to ask why government spending is harmful, maybe you have wider ideological problems
communists want high taxes yes
communists want government to spend all the money
yes
of course this ends in looting and cronyism as we saw in 2008 caused by freddy fany and fed printing money
what exactly is your question?
Henry George said tax rent.
This is brilliant.
The idea is to not have lazy donothings in the economy getting money
so everyone produces
simple

 

If you look back to what I was originally saying, I was responding to someone who argued that rich communist businessmen didn't want high taxes. So we agree then that this can't be the case because communists want high taxes. You agree with my original argument in the quoted chain of posts.

How do you get money in the economy if you're a lazy do-nothing? Unimproved land rent makes up a very small amount of income in the economy. If one does improve land and build on it, then one is now an investing entrepreneur, not a lazy good-for-nothing who is estimating what service will provide the greatest return on the market.

Yea, you do, and it's essential to any discussion surrounding taxation, which is why I address it. Why haven't you?

I'm sure if we just looked at one guy on a desert island our inquiry would be much simpler, but there is much more to an economy than that.

 

Because schools are run by unions and libbers who don't like to educate people. Can you imagine how hard they would have it if people understood Henry George's work on how trade imbalances do not hurt anyone and how tariffs hurt people in both countries for no reason? How would they blame everything on globalization if people were educated on how exchange systems work?

 

In economic speak, rent already excludes improvements, as improvements are classified as capital and the return to capital is classified as interest. Rent is always unearned.

Yes there is. You build improvements in order to earn money from them. Land value taxation does not tax improvements, so any money you earn is yours to keep.

The price the market is willing to pay for an empty lot is the unimproved value of land. If the land has improvements, then what the market would pay for the land if those improvements were removed is also the unimproved value of land. Unimproved lots in the middle of New York City can be very expensive. Land rent accounts for about 20%~25% of our economy, enough to fully fund government, even if every individual were allowed a modest exemption of their land value tax liability.

This is flat out false. Land value taxes do not distort the prices of consumer goods like other taxes. If all the current taxes were removed, then consumer prices would fall, as those embedded costs are removed from production and trade. From this point, the implementation of a land value tax, as a way to fund government, would not alter those consumer prices. From the producers or consumers point of view, land value taxation is the same as no taxation. The only side effect of land value taxation is that land prices fall, and land becomes cheaper for potential users to buy.

 

The Henry George argument revolved around the use of land value taxation as the primary source of government revenue. This same philosophy has more recently received praise from economists far more enlightened than yourself. Below is an extract from a letter advocating land value taxation, and the signatures of supporters, most of which are professors at world renowned universities, of which four (4) are Nobel Prize winning economists:

With that kind of support, the philosophy of land value taxation as the primary source of revenue can hardly be describe as “irrelevant”. I believe Henry George should be required reading for all high school students.

 

"Rent is always unearned. "

Absolutely incorrect. What about an author that collects rents on their IP law? A landlord that built a home and collects rents from tenants? etc.. Way off.

In any event, now people will develop land that they have for higher density, suburbs would cost a fortune etc... You would introduce all sorts of inefficiencies, a lot people trying to crowd into a small space. Nevermind the price of food would soar.

 

I am using the word rent in its economical sense. Adam Smith divided income into three parts, that of wages, interest and rent. What the author can collect in the free market for the writing of a book is classified as wages. What the “landlord” collects from his provision of a home is classified as interest.

Both wages for labor and interest for use of capital are earned, because they wouldn't exist if not produced. All income which does not belong in either the interest (for capital) or wages (for labor) categories automatically falls into the category of rent. So in the economical sense of the word, I am dead-on that rents are always unearned.

This is significant in economics because rents can be taxed to 100% of their full value without discouraging production; as opposed to taxing wages or interest which are earned and where a 100% tax would completely stop production.

This is hog-wash, completely unsupported by fact. If people crowded onto high density areas in order to pay less tax, then the land values would fall in all the other areas, and draw them back out.

Under the land value tax system the government doesn't set the tax rate, it just tell the citizens that whatever they offer for the use of land will be accepted, with the land being awarded to whoever offers the most for any given parcel.

Under this system of taxation there would be no point in speculating on land, because everyone would soon come to realize that the county land administration office is the cheapest place to acquire exclusive land tenure. Why would anyone rent land from a “landlord”, or pay a bunch of upfront money to a landowner, when they know that they can get exclusive land tenure cheaper from the county land administration office?

Wrong, food prices would go down because all taxes on improvements, income and equipment would be eliminated. All the land is still used, it simply goes to whoever is willing to pay the most tax in return for the privilege of exclusive tenure.

So, instead of farmers paying landlords for the use of land, they would instead pay the exact same amount to the local county land administration office -- but they would be better off, because all other taxes on their equipment and income would be eliminated. With more reward in their pockets, farmers would be more productive, and the quantity and quality of food would go up, not down. I don't know how you can get things so backwards?

 

Give me an example I practice. I am intrigued. I don't see how land income can't just be considered interest in your terms I also feel like this is how property taxes also work.


Is the point of all this to put a "time bomb" on land so it gets to work faster?

 

oh (*)(*)(*)(*) I already replied to this and set you straight lol

read the things I wrote, dont misquote me

gosh basics kid

remember real world is not like a government school
its quite opposite

 

socialism in practice is nazi germany stalin and mao
right
ok
so geoism is such a good idea, it is hushed up
its not communism, not capitalism, but the single tax on rent of land
awesome
imagine if all lazy rich who stick it to workers by charging rent cant without paying equal rent to the government?
and the government has no other taxes?
AWE SOMEE!!

 

I'm just going to assume that you're a troll, because it's much more kind than the alternative. You don't make much sense, and if you think that you do, then you should really go take a basic writing course.

 

Source?

I have a very hard time believing that land rent makes up this amount of the economy. I might buy that that is total rent, but just land rent?

If we instituted George's 100% land value tax were implemented then rents would fall to zero because there would be no incentive to charge rent in the first place. Rent would either be entirely substituted by a means of merely selling the land in whole, which would be intensely inefficient under certain conditions. The more that this caused land prices to fall (it of course would cause them to fall, but it's indeterminate to what extent it would fall) the more scarce land is misallocated from where it would otherwise be more useful. This goes up to the point where the value of unimproved land would fall to nothing at all and it would be allocated willy-nilly on the market without any reason. Perhaps for a time the government could still determine what unimproved land values were (something that is difficult because no pieces of land are exactly the same to begin with and most lands have at least been improved to some extent), but as economic conditions changed this allocation would be increasingly arbitrary without the market actually allocating land.

 

you have trouble with basic english I guess.
You have no argument.
You misquote me an babble.
capitalism built usa and government caused 2008

 

I'm quite familiar; regardless of where you go on the internet the dogma surrounding Georgism or Geoism or whatever is basically the same.

And critiques from those equally more informed than you or myself. Bryan Caplan gives one of the easiest to read here.

Sure, but pretty much anything offered as an alternative to our current quagmire would be an improvement. What I think you won't be able to give me is any current advocacy as a first best solution. I think the reason for this is pretty obvious though, it's quite possibly the least pragmatic solution imaginable, given the current political climate the notion that any type of broad tax reform is going to occur seems pretty unlikely.

It certainly is for virtually every student taking economics at an undergraduate level, if you have no grasp of the basic principles the concepts being discussed would be utterly lost on you. It's helpful that this thread gives a perfect example: some folks don't even know the difference between the rent collected by a landlord and economic rents, if you don't understand that any higher level concept is going to be lost on the audience.

 

I'd say it would depend upon the communist. There're the more Machiavellian types - the Marxist-Leninsts, or Trotskyists for instance - that're keen to using state force to make the transition. But many of the other sects - the Orthodox Marxists, the libertarians, the Mensheviks, the decentralist reformists, so on - are opposed to using the state for this end. Instead, they're rather begin using communitarian methods.

It's way more complicated than that, and we can go into it if you'd like, but it's good to just quickly point out that the left is so fragmented that blanket statements just don't cut it.