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.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
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 marco - Mar 26 21 comments
by gmoke - Mar 26
by DoDo - Mar 19 18 comments
by DoDo - Mar 7 21 comments
by DoDo - Mar 12 33 comments
by DoDo - Mar 14 7 comments
by Upstate NY - Mar 15 294 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 14 22 comments
by gmoke - Mar 26
by marco - Mar 2621 comments
by DoDo - Mar 1918 comments
by Upstate NY - Mar 15294 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1422 comments
by DoDo - Mar 147 comments
by alexc - Mar 126 comments
by DoDo - Mar 1233 comments
by paul spencer - Mar 112 comments
by gmoke - Mar 7
by DoDo - Mar 721 comments
by fjallstrom - Feb 28115 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 26125 comments
by talos - Feb 23171 comments
by DoDo - Feb 229 comments