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 Frank Schnittger - Dec 6 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 5 8 comments
by Metatone - Dec 5 11 comments
by marco - Nov 30 8 comments
by ARGeezer - Dec 6 7 comments
by vbo - Nov 21 9 comments
by Bjinse - Nov 24 13 comments
by afew - Nov 28 45 comments
by ARGeezer - Dec 67 comments
by Oui - Dec 65 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 63 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 5
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 58 comments
by Metatone - Dec 511 comments
by marco - Nov 308 comments
by afew - Nov 2845 comments
by Bjinse - Nov 2413 comments
by Oui - Nov 2317 comments
by vbo - Nov 219 comments
by Metatone - Nov 2030 comments
by gmoke - Nov 195 comments
by Oui - Nov 196 comments
by Cyrille - Nov 18107 comments
by Ted Welch - Nov 1510 comments
by Oui - Nov 14
by Oui - Nov 1210 comments
by afew - Nov 1233 comments
by madeleine kando - Nov 1114 comments