The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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.
Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.
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"
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.
by afew - Jan 25 9 comments
by melo - Jan 23 4 comments
by gmoke - Jan 15 5 comments
by DoDo - Jan 20 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 16 104 comments
by ChrisCook - Jan 1 65 comments
by afew - Jan 5 44 comments
by rifek - Jan 5 9 comments
by afew - Jan 259 comments
by melo - Jan 234 comments
by DoDo - Jan 204 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 16104 comments
by gmoke - Jan 155 comments
by afew - Jan 544 comments
by rifek - Jan 59 comments
by DoDo - Jan 25 comments
by ChrisCook - Jan 165 comments
by melo - Dec 316 comments
by Metatone - Dec 3129 comments
by rz - Dec 2956 comments