A Land Tax To Fund A Citizen's Wage

[Traktion]

And any taxation system has to be progressive. None of this flat tax tosh, thats for Eastern Europeans who need to keep things simple.

So it's fair that the high earners not only pay more tax even at a flat rate (as they earn more to be taxed), but should also pay an even higher rate too? Why?

Does someone with double the average income use double the number of state services? With progressive taxation, does someone with double the average income use more than double the number of state services? No, in fact they are likely to use less than average, as they will use private alternatives too.

If VAT was "progressive", would you think that a person on a high salary should pay double or triple for the same goods sold? Do you think this would be fair too? Would it serve them right for getting a good job and trying to do well in life?

I have no qualms about everyone paying a share towards keeping people fed and in shelter, but this robin hood, steal from the nasty rich, to give to the poor stuff just seems wrong to me. I'm by no means a super high earner (and until recently, was struggling to make ends meet with my own small business), but to force people to pay well above what they use, just seems unfair.

How can it be moral or fair to steal more than double someone's earnings, just because they can afford to pay it?

[Authoritarian]

A land tax can not be used to collect a large potion of tax simply because it would crash the land market so badly that land would be near worthless and hence you would collect no tax.

Using some realistic assumptions you would need in the region of a 100% plus land tax to collect anything even approaching the £500B you would need to fund your £200 “citizen bonus”

The simple fact is you cannot write into law wealth

Note: you may just about be able to give everyone a £50pw “citizens bonus” however you would not be able to pay for it via a land tax as that is near impossible. It would be paid for via normal taxes, ie income, VAT, etc but then that basically cancels out.

An arbitrary citizen's bonus isn't a great idea, but you make it sound like falling house prices is a bad thing because it might 'crash' the economy. High land prices have got us into this mess so something that keeps the price low and stable is something that should be welcomed imo, even if some people suffer during the transition because of their heavy involment in the real estate market.

[aa3]

Just read a good point from a book... Inventions from past generations and natural resources are a gift from god... they should be shared in benefit among all citizens equally.

In a democratic society we can vote for a more equal distribution of the god given gifts.

[aa3]

Good idea. But the wage has to be way below what can be lived on, or else people wont work.

You make some good points I agree with.. but this one I disagree with. I can see at some level people would stop working, but I believe the amount would be a lot higher than most of us think.

I've seen people inherit trust funds that pay out hefty dividends, yet the people still work. They just live a higher lifestyle than before. And probably take more vacation time, retire a little earlier.

Sometimes it allows them to make more money than otherwise. For example spending more time in school getting a higher paid career, or having capital to spend on their business. Like construction machinery or something.

I do admit for jobs people really didn't want to do, like say janitorial.. there would have to be wage inflation to entice people into the field.

[Traktion]

You make some good points I agree with.. but this one I disagree with. I can see at some level people would stop working, but I believe the amount would be a lot higher than most of us think.

I've seen people inherit trust funds that pay out hefty dividends, yet the people still work. They just live a higher lifestyle than before. And probably take more vacation time, retire a little earlier.

Sometimes it allows them to make more money than otherwise. For example spending more time in school getting a higher paid career, or having capital to spend on their business. Like construction machinery or something.

I do admit for jobs people really didn't want to do, like say janitorial.. there would have to be wage inflation to entice people into the field.

Yes, many people will see it as an opportunity to explore new avenues, but there will be those who will see it as an excuse to do as little as possible too. However, the bigger the CI, the higher the taxes. I think many people see the benefit of a small CI, thus removing the benefits trap though.

[Traktion]

This will always be a difficult discussion.

What I would do though to reduce the taxes required is to ensure that it does not vary by region. So do away with housing benefit etc and do away with local weighting allowances.

This then should reinstill economic decision making by the recipient. If they want to simply live off their citizen's income for whatever reason (it could be to develop a business they wouldn't otherwise want to take the risk for), then they can move to a cheaper area of the country, freeing up resources in hotspots allowing prices to come back down to a more reasonable level.

I like your points there. I certainly think there could be net benefits for everyone in ways which may not be apparent at first. With current benefits, many see it as living off others, a temporary thing etc. With a CI, there may be more of a shift to entitlement, which everyone can share in, rather than just the "scroungers". Without the stigma of being on the dole or part of the benefits class, people may start to use the money constructively, paying for education, starting a business or whatever it is needed for.

I suppose a CI not only provides benefits to keep people off the street, but it also gives a whole different perspective on benefits as a whole. It does seem to make a lot more sense than the fractured system we have now (to me anyway).

[Objective Developer]

I like your points there. I certainly think there could be net benefits for everyone in ways which may not be apparent at first. With current benefits, many see it as living off others, a temporary thing etc. With a CI, there may be more of a shift to entitlement, which everyone can share in, rather than just the "scroungers". Without the stigma of being on the dole or part of the benefits class, people may start to use the money constructively, paying for education, starting a business or whatever it is needed for.

I suppose a CI not only provides benefits to keep people off the street, but it also gives a whole different perspective on benefits as a whole. It does seem to make a lot more sense than the fractured system we have now (to me anyway).

This makes sense - it would be a great way to encourage development not currently economically viable (through lack of opportunity among other things).

Taxing land value is actually a very good way of funding this, as it doesn't fall on production (of wealth), but rather on economic rent which is unearned and de facto a benefit of ownership and not endeavour.

[Injin]

This makes sense - it would be a great way to encourage development not currently economically viable (through lack of opportunity among other things).

Taxing land value is actually a very good way of funding this, as it doesn't fall on production (of wealth), but rather on economic rent which is unearned and de facto a benefit of ownership and not endeavour.

I've has an idea how this can be made to work out here in the alternative universe we like to call reality.

Propogate the idea, but remove the sanction.

The big problem with the land tax isn;t that the basic idea is just, but that you want to include Gordon brown and have him collect it for you. Get rid of Tony Blair out of the equation and it's a lot more viable. After all if Chairman Mao is colecting your land tax, then it's going to stay in his pockets - so what you really need is for it to be a voluntary recognition from those who are gaining that they are doing so at others expense and that the balance requires addressing.

[Objective Developer]

I've has an idea how this can be made to work out here in the alternative universe we like to call reality.

Propogate the idea, but remove the sanction.

The big problem with the land tax isn;t that the basic idea is just, but that you want to include Gordon brown and have him collect it for you. Get rid of Tony Blair out of the equation and it's a lot more viable. After all if Chairman Mao is colecting your land tax, then it's going to stay in his pockets - so what you really need is for it to be a voluntary recognition from those who are gaining that they are doing so at others expense and that the balance requires addressing.

A very good point - the system as it exists today is corrupt and serves the few at the expense of the many. I guess a public revolt might remove the vested interests at the top, but history has shown that one corrupt power replaces another.

[Traktion]

From googling, I found this:

http://www.landvaluetax.org/

And also a petition to number 10:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/TaxLess4more/

98 signatures so far... could do with a good few thousand more if they are going to give a damn.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Traktion

[Objective Developer]

From googling, I found this:

http://www.landvaluetax.org/

And also a petition to number 10:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/TaxLess4more/

98 signatures so far... could do with a good few thousand more if they are going to give a damn.

Signed.