undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnimalMuppet6y ago0 comments

First: "They can flee to another country in case of war" is terrible reasoning. You expect the other country to let them in? All of them? Yeah, that's not the way things actually happen in this flawed world. Most of them will not have the opportunity to flee. So... they should just die?

No, the military is there to protect the people, not just the wealth. So your post seems like it's trying to rationalize a not-up-for-debate position, rather than actually reasoning based on reality. Georgism claims to be motivated by compassion for those who are at the mercy of rentiers, but your position shows an immense lack of compassion. "Let them flee to a different country" is the most cold-hearted thing I've heard in a long time.

Second: that wasn't my point. My point was, let's see the plan where you actually produce $800 billion (or whatever the military budget is) just from a land tax. Let's see what the actual rates would have to be, and what the effects of those rates would be.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

snidane6y ago· 1 in thread

Look. You only seem to want to make it complicated.

If your military is too expensive and not covered by LVT, just go ahead and add a specific tax to fund your military. If you can justify that it'll protect everybody then people will be fine with it.

Idea of LVT as a single or zero tax is a political move to get you thinking about better government funding schemes. You should think of "paying for specific services" instead of "pooling money and allocating them according to wishes of select few" as is the case of current tax systems.

AnimalMuppetOP6y ago

> Idea of LVT as a single or zero tax is a political move to get you thinking about better government funding schemes.

You know, if you had said that up front, we could have had a more productive discussion. But everybody's been saying "This is The Right Way(TM) to do taxes!" When non-true-believers point out all the problems, then we get "it's just a talking point".

In fact, I suspect that a number of LVT supporters on this thread don't agree with you. I suspect that several of them believe that it's the answer.

scatters6y ago· 1 in thread

Since when has the purpose of invasion been genocide?

AnimalMuppetOP6y ago

The point of invasion has been to kill people until the other government will do what you want. "Kill people" is supposed to be just the military, but there are inevitably civilian casualties. A big part of the point of a military (namely defense) is to keep anybody else's military from getting inside our borders, where it's our people being killed.

Both snidane and I assumed that there would be danger to civilians in case of an invasion. The invader doesn't have to intend genocide for that to be true.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse