undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnimalMuppet4y ago0 comments

1. That might help some, but it won't fix it. Wherever else taxes are cut won't be on property, therefore the "land value tax plus some other tax cuts" will work out worse for property owners. That's kind of the point. But it's also, as hash872 says, the thing that makes it politically impossible.

2. Make it revenue neutral? Who's going to do that? Some legislature somewhere? Are they actually going to do it? Or are they going to say "Yay, more money!" and find new things to spend it on?

I have zero confidence that a Georgist tax would be revenue neutral, no matter what theory says should happen, and no matter what promises are made.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

colinmhayes4y ago· 2 in thread

> I have zero confidence that a Georgist tax would be revenue neutral

It's pretty trivially easy to make any tax revenue neutral. Just return 100% of the tax revenue to the people split evenly between every person or adult in the country.

AnimalMuppetOP4y ago

My skepticism has nothing to do with how technically easy it would be. My skepticism comes from observing the behaviors of actual politicians. They're going to spend the money, not give it back, no matter how trivial giving it back would be.

notahacker4y ago

But then we're on to why would the state do that, unless they happen to be a state composed entirely of geolibertarians that think redistributing ground rent is the proper purpose of government? A regular government considering going through the political pain of turfing out homeowners at least wants budget to spend on their actual political priorities

(Also, giving tax money "back" to the population is surprisingly nontrivial given political complications over which people qualify to get the rebate, political and practical complications over actually getting the money, and an expected ultimate impact - positive and negative - on the net recipients)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse