Defending the Truth

Most people agree that SOME sort of tax reform is needed. The question, of course, is what sort of reform is best. I found the following quote on someone's signature. I think it's a good starting point for this discussion.

This is exactly why I'm in favor of the (gradual) replacement of ALL taxes with a single tax on the value of land (exempting all improvements) following the political thought of Adam Smith, Henry George, Winston Churchill, and Tom Pain.

The logic of this comes from the economic fact that the value attached to land (more properly, "location") is not created by the owner of that land but by the labors of those within the localized area. Thus, justice is best served if the value of that land is redistributed to the rightful owners as closely as possible. So, I would propose that a stiff land tax be installed with the proceeds being returned to the citizens of the given region in the form of a "citizen's dividend" (exactly like oil proceeds in Alaska). A small portion of this tax could be used to finance the state. In my mind, the ideal state is a minimum state.

Once the land tax is in place the laborer would again collect the full fruit of his labor and would be free "to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him". As long as our economy/tax system is engineered to take from labor and capital what is rightfully the private property of the laborer or capitalist we will not see true reform.

I don't think we need a radical shift of how taxes work. I do think we need a radical shift of how said tax money is budgeted.

so, Manhattanites would be about 95% tax free?!

Uh...NO. Manhattan has the highest of all land values and would thus see a the highest tax of all.

so, the 5% of the wealthiest people in the world just takes care of everything for the other 95%? I mean, the vast overwhelming majority of people who live in Manhattan do NOT own property.

It would be regionally based. States would be "commonwealths" again.

commonwealths? 50 independent nations under self-rule?!

Sorry, I misread you in my last post.

But yes, Donald trump would pay most of the tax. He's the greatest theft of all.

Also, once you look at the economics, you would see that a land tax would break up land monopoly and result in a redistribution of land in a way that would look more equitable within an urban city.

I believe that if you took the number of residents, and the number of actual "properties" in NYC, there would always be a HUGE discrepency between land-owners and non-land-owners. It's not unusual for one property to house 1000 residents. Why should that one land-owner be stuck with all the taxes for the other 999 residents?

That's not what I mean. I mean wealth from the commons would be enjoyed by the common man. In other words, land is fundamentally a commons (no one has more of a right to a given chunk than anyone else) and thus the wealth affixing itself should be shared by those who create it. Now, you and I don't create land wealth (economic rent) in, say, Japan, but we do create land wealth in our local regions - a wealth we have a right to.