Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
It seems to me that what you are proposing is simply a needlessly convoluted way to shift taxation from labour to rental value, by requiring the sovereign - or some proxy for same - to take all land into custody and rent it out, thus substituting its new rental income for the current tax income.

The incidence of taxation is an expression of political power. If you have the political power to move to a monetary system that requires the state to collect and/or tax away a greater proportion of the rental value land than it does today, then you also have the political power to just tax landowners (unless you wish to assume that landowners are stupid - for which there may be a case to be made).

And if you do have the power to tax landowners, then taxing them will be superior to your proposal, because your scheme will not break down gracefully if power swings back to the landholders: A reprivatisation of the land will allow landholders to hold the monetary system hostage until you go off the land standard. That encourages a positive feedback loop going in the wrong direction, to borrow one of ATinNM's stock phrases.

You're basically proposing a fiat system in a cheap tuxedo and with an open back door for takeover by landholders as well as banksters.

Do. Not. Want.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Oct 24th, 2011 at 05:42:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who said anything about the custodian being the sovereign?  A plague on sovereigns.

That may be the case for Hong Kong, but their system is defective in many ways: it just happens to monetise (indirectly via the government as intermediary) far more land value than virtually anyone else.

Which I think is a Good Thing tax-wise.

What I am proposing is essentially a loan direct to the land, not to the owner.

The difference is that in this loan, no money is paid for the use of money, but rather, money is being paid for the use of the capital invested in a particular location, both publicly and privately.

I can demonstrate conclusively that - as should be intuitively obvious - a funding cost that does not include compound interest is lower than one which does.

Also, I think that a currency redeemable in payment for such a rental payment would be generally fungible in a location.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Nov 1st, 2011 at 09:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who said anything about the custodian being the sovereign?

Managing the monetary system is a sovereign function, because the sovereign is the only economic actor within its jurisdiction that is solvent by fiat rather than balance sheet.

Making a monetary system without a sovereign that's actually sovereign is - eh - not wise, as the EU has been quite instructively demonstrating for the next best thing to three years now.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 06:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Spain votes again

by Migeru - Jun 26

Reversing Brexit?

by Frank Schnittger - Jun 25

Brexit: Get on with it already?

by Bernard - Jun 26

Should I vote for Brexit?

by tyronen - Jun 22

The Killing of Jo Cox

by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17

Occasional Series