patrick.net

Trump Drops Bombshell Proposal: Allegedly Suggests Eliminating Income Tax in Favor of High Import Tariffs During DC Republicans Meeting

Trump Drops Bombshell Proposal: Allegedly Suggests Eliminating Income Tax in Favor of High Import Tariffs During DC Republicans Meeting

Despite these tariffs, the prices of imported goods remained unaffected under Trump’s administration.

Right, it's just a step in the right direction. The Land Value Tax is what would generate enough revenue to run the government we need. Not the one we have.

We couldn't impose a federal income tax either until the 16th Amendment.

16th should be repealed and replaced with LVT.

I sympathize with your wanting to believe, but it's not even remotely close. Communism murdered way WAY more people than fascism: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. People want to keep the results of their own labor, so communists have to kill people to take their stuff to "redistribute". And after a bit of this, no one bothers to produce anything anymore because they see it will be stolen. Then everyone still left alive is poor.

But let's talk about what we agree on: as productivity increased over the last 50 years or so, workers got none of the gains. It all went to stockholders.

All that stuff produced ultimately came from land. Thing of a car. Every part of it was from land: metal, glass, rubber, even the gasoline. No one made the land, but all the profits from land go to the land owners anyway.

Or think of a landlord. OK, he built or maintains a building. That's real work and he should get paid for that part. But owning the land? That's not work. That's just taking from others, also called "non-productive rent-seeking":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

That unearned land rent is the only appropriate object of taxation, and should be taxed at 100%. Taxing away the profits from land ownership will not hurt the economy in the least. It's not like less land will be produced.

But taxing earned income is bad, because that discourages work. And taxing sales is bad because that discourages commerce, and commerce makes everyone better off as people engage in voluntary trade with each other.

So the owners of businesses are doing something good by producing, but something bad by taking unearned profits from land ownership. Neither the pure capitalist nor pure communist is doing the right thing.

The impediment to implementing Georgism is psychological. As people start to accumulate land, they LIKE the ability to exploit everyone else without working anymore, simply by owning the land. Everyone hopes to exploit everyone else by owning as much land as possible. Mostly we see this when people buy a house. They want the price of the house+land to go up without doing any work. So pretty much everyone who buys a house instantly becomes anti-Georgist because he or she is hoping to take unearned income from others who need somewhere to live.

So pretty much everyone who buys a house instantly becomes anti-Georgist because he or she is hoping to take unearned income from others who need somewhere to live.

Owning the land under your house is a bet that the land value will rise due to the development of the economy

Me arguing with a communist on my Substack:

"development of the economy?" Try "inflation." Inflation that causes the tax to increase every other year and increases the cost of selling and replacing

Trump is going to open up federal lands for development. it’ll be wild again.

I would argue that the land value only goes up as long as the population keeps increasing. Once we reach an infection point where world population growth stalls or reverses to decline, it will likely not appreciate anymore or even depreciate.

Job density also matters. Where jobs are increasing, land prices increase, soaking up unearned income off the work of others. Which is pretty much the central thesis of Georgism.

Where jobs are increasing, land prices increase, soaking up unearned income off the work of others.

So, the many times that lands prices have decreased, does that mean that those "others" have soaked income of the landowner?

HeadSet says

So, the many times that lands prices have decreased, does that mean that those "others" have soaked income of the landowner?

First, it's the other way around. And second, obviously what goes up can go down. Again, look at West Virginia after Obama nuked the domestic coal industry.