« First « Previous Comments 67 - 85 of 85 Search these comments
How would land be taxed if it's owned by the government like hong kong and singapore?
That would make mid west farmers with thousands of acres really happy. Back out all the government owned public land the number goes up to $5615 per acre. That would really be a help to family farms.
Why aren't they as wealthy as Honk Kong if georgism is the key to prosperity?
It notice that the GDP per capita isn't adjusted by PPP.
Zurich is incredibly expensive for a huge range of goods and services. Hong Kong is world famous for cheap eats, shopping, services, etc.
Obvious straw man. No one is suggesting that all land be taxed equally. It should be proportional to the value. But yes, another way we will pay the land vaule tax is via food, which we already do now to some degree.
PPP is the most bogus metric there is. By the time all the data is gathered it's useless.. There is a good reason anyone dealing in money uses Market Exchange and anyone dealing in the academic ivory tower world (ngo's, policy wonks, foundations, etc.) uses PPP. The big mac index is probably just as good if not better..
And raw GDP is also useless because of cost of living differences between developed countries. Yes, it's useful for figuring out Swaziland isn't Sweden, but not the relative advantages of living in either Sweden or Switzerland.
The problem cannot be resolved until parasites' assets are confiscated, they are stripped of passport and citizenship and deported on a red eye flight to nicaragua.
Here's a bit more about the land value tax (LVT) in Hong Kong and Singapore:The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05
Also, Hong Kong government had a long history of auctioning government land to the highest bidder
Landlords who build or maintain buildings are providing a service to the public. I don't think that's scummy at all. It's valuable work.
My point is only that merely owning land is not a service to anyone.
There will be no land value tax.
I know mine is (a parasite).
Raised our rent $200 (14% increase, Las Vegas) after 2 1/2 years of on time payments with no calls for anything.
Reason given by PM - rents are really going up, with a tone of amazement, slight glee.
Place is not premium, by any stretch of the imagination. With a large desert scrub backyard and two pets, I might as well live outdoors with all the dirt dragged in. .
SFace saysThere will be no land value tax.
@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.
SFace saysThere will be no land value tax.
@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.
LVT does not work. In places you think it works, property prices is at puke level.
Note that salaries in Hong Kong and Singapore are also off the charts.
But the economy is much better for everyone (except big landowners) under a land value tax. The tax is non-destructive of work and commerce.
« First « Previous Comments 67 - 85 of 85 Search these comments
To be fair, the construction and maintenance of a building is productive work, so rent on a building should not be taxed at all.
But rent from mere non-productive ownership of land should be taxed at 100%. Owning land benefits no one and produces nothing.
Once we as a society learn to distinguish between productive work and non-productive rent-seeking, we will be much better off. But it's slow going. People seem remarkably resistant to the obvious fact that the building and the land are very different entities.