How To Distribute The Surplus

[Traktion]

What right does a really big landowner have telling you, you have to pay him to build a house on his property? The force of the state backs it up.

Likewise the state can distribute the surplus however it wants.

Exactly - you either have a land free for all (Injin style) OR you tax the usage of land, in exchange for the state enforcing land ownership rights. We currently have neither, but instead a focus on taxing productivity, while leaving the rent seekers with an easy way to make money (through land ownership rights) at the expense of everyone else.

Georgism was the right approach two hundred years ago and it's still the right approach now. Wrestling the rents away from the rich VIs will never be any easy task though.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Traktion

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Exactly - you either have a land free for all (Injin style) OR you tax the usage of land, in exchange for the state enforcing land ownership rights. We currently have neither, but instead a focus on taxing productivity, while leaving the rent seekers with an easy way to make money (through land ownership rights) at the expense of everyone else.

Georgism was the right approach two hundred years ago and it's still the right approach now. Wrestling the rents away from the rich VIs will never be any easy task though.

I would suggest an anarchists' revolution but none of them want to form a mob.

[council dweller]

If house prices were massively cheaper, we'd all be relatively richer with, proportionately a huge disposable income each.

HPC is the answer to it all. *

* however, not saying what would happen to average wages.

Give more people the option of renting government owned housing, use technology to build useing concrete with insulating formwork. Build just the shell and roof and let the tenant fit out at their expense. Rental cost would be ground rent plus shell rent. (very low!) The tenancy could be sold at a maximum price of say 10k.

If people had this option we'd see a HPC.

Edited October 27, 2010 by council dweller

[aa3]

Nice that you quote 1984 there aa3, but apart from your notion of citizens income being marxist in flavour (and we all know that communism isn't open to systemic fraud like that nasty capitalism (yeah right)), you are associating your solution with the perpetual war that was happening in said novel.

Altruism doesn't stay altruistic for long, it is the human instinct to want to be at the top of the pile.

CI or the negative income tax isn't really communism though. Only 15% of the economy would be distributed equally.. the other 85% would be the same as now.

It is also a way to keep capitalism functioning, by getting money to the consumers. Right now capitalism is dying, being kept on life support by government bailouts. Without any reforms as the millions of unemployed grows eventually they will support outright communism.

The same as the 30's-50's progressive reforms didn't kill capitalism.. actually capitalism was failing then too.

Edited October 27, 2010 by aa3

[aa3]

Exactly - you either have a land free for all (Injin style) OR you tax the usage of land, in exchange for the state enforcing land ownership rights. We currently have neither, but instead a focus on taxing productivity, while leaving the rent seekers with an easy way to make money (through land ownership rights) at the expense of everyone else.

Georgism was the right approach two hundred years ago and it's still the right approach now. Wrestling the rents away from the rich VIs will never be any easy task though.

Good point. Atlee and Churchill also went a long way to breaking the landowners by building 250k council houses a year. But we've reverted back to restricting supply and the landowners capturing any productivity gains.

[Sledgehead]

I don't think you're entering into the spirit of my hypothetical example.

..

It was a serious question; try a serious reply!

You did not give him a serious question tho. Moreover, "spirit of things" isn't even for cricket matches. Get real.

Instead of assuming a significant number of parents can be nuclear physicists AND find roles that use their talents, you'd be better off seeking to quantify the waster of correcting the behaviour / trying to remediate the prospects of people who have no concept of loyalty.

[easy2012]

CI or the negative income tax isn't really communism though. Only 15% of the economy would be distributed equally.. the other 85% would be the same as now.

It is also a way to keep capitalism functioning, by getting money to the consumers. Right now capitalism is dying, being kept on life support by government bailouts. Without any reforms as the millions of unemployed grows eventually they will support outright communism.

The same as the 30's-50's progressive reforms didn't kill capitalism.. actually capitalism was failing then too.

CI is kind of interesting but what does the proposal say about a 10 kids + 2 adults strong, can't be bothered to work family? If CI is £7k each, then the family will be

paid £84k ?)

Wouldn't this make Britain the magnet for low skill immigrant ?

[Alan B'Stard MP]

CI will require an ID database.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Traktion]

CI will require an ID database.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I should think they already have enough of our details on file to make it workable. All they really need to know, is how much tax you've paid on earnings (income tax, capital gains tax etc) and a bank account number (which they can only pay in to).

[Snow Birds]

Both Person A and Person B are able/qualified to look after Person A's children, but only Person A is a nuclear physicist.

Wouldn't Person A taking a job as a nuclear physicist and letting Person B look after their kids generate more GDP than if Person A looked after her own kids? First of all that would make the best economical gain by using Person A's skills fully, and generating another job that's available for a Person B-like person to be able to accept.

Please do correct me if I'm making a nasty economic blunder!

You have taken a very unusual ( and hence tiny percentage) of cases and used it to rationalise the vast majority. You then expect your ideas to be taken seriously. Substitute "scam" for "blunder" and you have your answer.

[Ologhai Jones]

You did not give him a serious question tho. Moreover, "spirit of things" isn't even for cricket matches. Get real.

Instead of assuming a significant number of parents can be nuclear physicists AND find roles that use their talents, you'd be better off seeking to quantify the waster of correcting the behaviour / trying to remediate the prospects of people who have no concept of loyalty.

You have taken a very unusual ( and hence tiny percentage) of cases and used it to rationalise the vast majority. You then expect your ideas to be taken seriously. Substitute "scam" for "blunder" and you have your answer.

You're both reading more into my reply than was there: I wasn't assuming significant numbers of anyone did anything, nor did I use my example to rationalise the vast majority.

And who said I expected my ideas to be taken seriously?

I was just suggesting that a mum going out to work and having her kids looked after while she's at work may represent a more optimal use of skills and, hence, generate more economic value (higher GDP).

I didn't think this situation was necessarily quite the same as two sandwich makers buying their wares off each other.

If I'm wrong about that, then so be it -- but at least tell me I am wrong about what I'm actually saying!

[aa3]

Indeed and what growth there will be may well be largely due to population growth. GDP per capital is more relevant. I suspect there will be a end to growth, in effect, due to resource shortages. The concept that the earth resources are infinite is a mind boggling but apparently almost universally held belief.

I don't see any resource limitations for the foreseeable future. The biggest thing is energy and with nuclear power and breeder reactors it provides essentially unlimited power for the foreseeable future. And breeder reactors are a known technology already in commercial operation in the world.

[aa3]

CI is kind of interesting but what does the proposal say about a 10 kids + 2 adults strong, can't be bothered to work family? If CI is £7k each, then the family will be

paid £84k ?)

Wouldn't this make Britain the magnet for low skill immigrant ?

The CI in 2030 would be £6k for adults and £3k for kids. So that family would get £42k. Still quite attractive to a person in a very poor struggling nation.

I am a believer that we need to take citizenship a lot more seriously. Both as individuals and as a nation. One commentator said its interesting how people are defined nowadays.. employees, consumers, debtors, etc.. but rarely as citizens.

Imo we should build the nation like a family business is built up. With a long term goal always in mind, to pass it to our children, and from them to their children. Building the capital wealth, the reputation and so on. So if citizenship really means something, we shouldn't just give it away. Sure a person who truly wants to become part of our culture and nation, and over a long time proves it.. or marriage or things like that, yes.

Btw this is one reason I lean towards Monarchism sometimes. A King doesn't sell off the wealth of the nation for a quick profit. The nation is something he plans to pass down to his son.

Edited October 29, 2010 by aa3