Comment by ehfeng
2 days ago
You shouldn't strawman the other side. Us "people who fancy" actually understand that there are real negative side effects. But the money has to come from somewhere.
If not from land taxes, where? Would you like to double sales tax? Or increase income taxes? Every solution costs something, what does yours cost?
> actually understand that there are real negative side effects.
Everything has real negative consequences. One side does not hold the monopoly on negative side effects.
Land is not cheap to repurpose. The Georgism dream that land can be optimally used is a farce. There is significant costs to repurposing land - to make those costs worth it because of the taxes would heavily distort current society, and I think the assumption that this would be desirable compared to the status quo is unproven.
> double sales tax? Or increase income taxes?
Why not the taxes we have? Where is the presumption that taxes need to be changed at all, never mind doubled?
Even if we decide we want to raise taxes, choosing where to do so is delicate. Again, the optimal answer from an economist is not necessarily desirable from an emotional perspective of the people being governed.
> Land is not cheap to repurpose. The Georgism dream that land can be optimally used is a farce. There is significant costs to repurposing land - to make those costs worth it because of the taxes would heavily distort current society, and I think the assumption that this would be desirable compared to the status quo is unproven.
Your friction is real - and already exists.
So the bar for improvement is not no friction.
The bar is less friction, and higher productive use of land, which benefits everyone. Lowering the costs of both housing and business space, while increasing economic output.
That is was economic alignment does, it doesn't just improve one thing, or improve on a one-time or fixed percentage basis.
And less passive, underutilizing, economically-parasitic investments from the rich. (Rich passive investment in land, uses land like Bitcoin for its deflationary nature, which compounds land prices while suppressing its full productive use.
Not raises. Compounds. The more the rich passively invest in land, the more profitable land becomes to passively invest in.
Stating truisms ahead of straw manning me avoids the actual discussion. "Everything has real negative consequences." "Land is not cheap to repurpose." I never said otherwise.
You're right about my estimate being off though and it was a disservice to the discussion. An equivalent revenue from sales tax would require ~2.1%. In SF, that would move the total sales tax from 8.6% to 10.7%; in Oakland, 13.8%. A large increase would likely bend some consumer behavior (chasing sales that have feet, aka move to the informal/grey market).
> Again, the optimal answer from an economist is not necessarily desirable from an emotional perspective of the people being governed.
This is the real difference between us imo. I believe the optimal answer is based on realistic projections on revenue collected and what prevents bankruptcy. The compromise answer is what passes a vote and in fact, the bankrupt answer.
I would prefer we didn't raise taxes and instead reduce spending. But given the complexity of reducing spending and the scale of our deficit, we will have to do both. On the side of raising revenue, a land tax offers a way of taxing a wealth that cannot flee.
The negative side effects of taxes on labor are enormous, and have distorted humanity probably more than any other factor.
Any consideration of the consequences of taxes also has to consider the consequences of the current taxation.
But taxes have and will always be a transfer of wealth from the working poor to the rich and powerful. People talking about tax reform or more effective and just systems tend to forget this. It's like the lamb having an opinion on how the wolves should share it.